Episode 2230 Scott Adams: Alien Corpses Found In Mexico Are Being Bussed To NYC & Mayor Adams Is Mad
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Rep. Lauren Boebert, Paul Krugman, Impeachment Inquiry, President Biden, Extraterrestrial Corpses, Government Propaganda Machine, Oliver Darcy, Political Prisoners, Owen Shroyer, Internet Dads, Russian Military Improvements, Ukraine War, Decongestants, Phenylephrine, Corruption Evidence, Anthony Fauci, Pandemic Lies, 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
Looking at some pictures that are... Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and I'm told that aliens are coming from far away just to be here for this.
And if you'd like your experience to go up a level that nobody even imagined was possible, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or gel or styne, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine.
At the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better, it's called simultaneous sip.
Go.
Oh, that's good.
That's good.
Ladies and gentlemen, today I believe the podcast called Trigernometry will be featuring me.
So look for that.
I think it dropped today.
You'll be amazed and delighted or entertained or something.
By the way, how many of you have bought the best book in the world for a gift?
It turns out I accidentally wrote the best gift book in the world, Reframe Your Brain.
Because after you read it and it changes your life, you can give it to other people and it changes their life.
You know, I was trying to think who it would not be suitable for.
And I couldn't think of anybody below maybe the age of 14 or something.
Maybe not so much.
But above the age of 14, there's literally nobody in the world who shouldn't get this book as a gift.
Because it's that useful.
But everybody who's read it has already learned that.
That's why it's by far the most gifted book in the world.
I would say I could say that with ease.
All right, so here's what's going on.
Some late shows are trying to come back without writers because of the writer's strike.
Now, how are they going to do it?
How in the world?
I mean, they say they're going to do it by being, you know, spontaneous and not having written pieces.
But how in the world would anybody do a show like multiple times per week without professional writers?
How?
How is that even possible?
How could it be done that somebody could do a show without professional writers?
It's called a podcast.
A podcast.
It's what literally every podcast does.
For an hour.
Every time.
In fact, there's no podcast that can't do that.
They can all do an hour of talking to a guest or two.
Or no guest at all in my case.
How hard is that?
Turns out not very hard if you have talent.
But the late show people are Trying to work it out.
Trying to figure out how do we do a show without professional writers.
Can't imagine.
All right, my favorite story of the day, and there's so many to pick from, is Representative Lauren Boebert got kicked out of a Denver Beetlejuice performance for what they call disruptive behavior.
Now there were no details on what her disruptive behavior was alleged to have been.
There's only security footage of her walking all the way out from, you know, where she was asked to leave in the audience, all the way down the halls and up the stairs and around the corners.
They had lots and lots of video footage.
So we could get a pretty good idea what it was about Representative Boebert that was, quote, disruptive.
I don't know about you, but if you saw the dress she was wearing, it felt a little disruptive to me, if you know what I mean.
In my pants.
Yes, it turns out that Representative Boebert has an impressive set of headlights that she was showcasing in a dress that could only be made more flattering if viewed from the angle of the security cameras.
Looking directly down on her.
So all the news is we're pretending that the news isn't looking at our tits.
Which were quite impressive, I must say.
Now if I were going to add a political character to the Dilbert comic strip universe, what would that character's name be?
Hmm.
You got a Dilbert, a Ratbert, a Catbert.
Hmm.
A Bobert.
I think I might add her to the comic strip.
Because I need a politician.
Yeah, she'll be a gun-toting bobert.
Maybe, maybe not.
Well, hey, was anybody worried that the economy is in trouble?
I was.
You know, until this morning, I honestly, I was a little bit worried about our economy.
You know, what with the debt and the inflation and stuff like that.
But I am told That economist Krugman, you've heard of Krugman?
Economist?
Yeah, he says, not only was I wrong about how bad it was, But I was sort of doubly wrong.
I mean, listen to how wrong I was.
I mean, I'm mocking myself now because, you know, I've got a degree in economics and I was so wrong.
I was so wrong.
So here's what I should have been thinking.
This is from Krugman.
Paul Krugman, he says, quote, the economic data have been surreally good.
Wow, surreally, surreally good.
See, if I were to rank that, let's see, there would be good, less than good, Better than good.
And then surreally good.
That's surreally good.
Oh, how good is it?
Oh, it's surreally good.
It's surreally good.
Yeah.
So it's surreally good.
And he goes on.
Well, he's not done yet.
Even optimists are just stunned.
Optimists are stunned.
Well, I don't know, does that sound like hyperbole?
Are the optimists all stunned?
I mean, I consider myself an optimist.
Am I stunned?
Well, let's see what else.
So why do polls show most Americans don't think the economy is doing well?
There's a really profound and peculiar disconnect going on.
Weird.
It's weird that the people who can't afford groceries Don't know that they really can.
What's wrong with them?
Let's see what the inflation rate is, because I'm an optimist.
It's a 3.7.
Okay, what happened?
Was I stunned for a moment?
I am an optimist.
I feel like I was stunned.
How long have I been out?
Is today still Wednesday?
I don't know what's going on.
Well, I'm stunned.
Stunned and unconscious because that economy is so, so good.
I'm stunned.
So in case you thought it was bad, it's not.
So there's a supporter of Joe Biden who tells you it's pretty, pretty good.
Well, the impeachment inquiry is a go.
Not the impeachment.
No, no, no.
Don't confuse the impeachment inquiry with an impeachment.
If there's anything I could teach you, it's that the inquiry and the impeachment are completely different.
So the inquiry is to find out if there's enough to impeach.
Sort of, you might think of it like a grand jury.
Would that be a good analogy?
The grand jury To the impeachment inquiry, because the trial would be like the impeachment, and the indictment, the grand jury indictment process, would be sort of like an inquiry.
Oh, is there enough here?
Well, we don't know, but it looks like there's a suggestion of a hint of enough, so you better look into it.
So your news sources will be trying to confuse you continuously about the difference between an impeachment inquiry And an impeachment.
One of the ways they'll do it is that the left will say things like, there's no evidence.
There's no direct evidence.
In fact, there's a, oh, let's call it the hoax well.
Have I ever told you about the hoax well?
When people start at the top and they say, X is totally true!
And then you show them it's not true.
And then they go, well, X is not true, but, you know, Y is certainly true.
And then he showed them that's not true.
Well, X and Y are not true, that's for sure.
But how about Z?
You know, they'll just keep going down the well.
So here's the evolution of the Biden, let's say, defenses.
It started with Biden did nothing wrong.
Biden did nothing wrong.
There was nothing wrong.
So that was the beginning.
And then it turned into, there's no evidence Biden did anything wrong.
That's a little different, isn't it?
One is a statement that you know for sure that nothing happened, but you soften it a little bit by saying, well, you know, nobody could know what they don't know, but, you know, is there any direct, is there any evidence?
Is there any evidence?
And then when it was shown that there was plenty of evidence, It changed to, but is it direct?
Yeah, it's not really direct.
Sure, it's circumstantially sort of indirect in the domain of, in the general zip code of, but is it direct?
Well, we're now past, there's no direct evidence, but now as CNN put it today, And I quote, there is a lack of impeachment evidence.
Oh, so we're not only moving away from anything wrong.
And we're not only moving away from, well, there's no evidence of anything wrong.
And we've moved away from, well, there's no direct evidence of anything wrong.
And now we're at, there's no direct evidence of anything that's impeachable.
Because you know why it might not be impeachable?
Technical reasons.
Because it might be behavior that happened prior to being president.
Which CNN's making a point of.
And I'm not sure that's a terrible, is that a bad defense?
Seems pretty relevant to me.
But could you say that if somebody took money from China and Ukraine right before they were president, that that has no bearing on the actual being of president now?
Well, let's just say there's no evidence that it would make a difference.
No, I mean, there's no direct evidence That any of that would make a difference to his current performance on the job.
And by that I mean not no direct evidence.
I mean no direct impeachable evidence.
And by that I mean the process hasn't started yet so they haven't told us what the evidence is.
But by that I mean there's really a mountain of evidence that's pretty obvious.
But is any of it impeachable?
Well that's what the process will find out.
Now what What is the most predictable thing about the process?
Let's see.
If I were going to predict where the impeachment inquiry will go, I'm going to say that the impeachment outcome will be a lot of alien corpses and spaceships being found.
But hard to verify.
Hard to verify.
But lots of them.
I wonder if anything like that's happened in the news today.
Oh yeah.
Turns out they found alien corpses in Mexico.
A thousand years old.
Totally, totally believable.
Now what they don't tell you about the alien corpses that they found in Mexico...
is that they're already being bused to New York City.
And Mayor Adams is complaining.
He's like, can I handle any more alien corpses in New York City?
And then people are like, well, you said you're a sanctuary city.
And then he's like, yeah, but not for space aliens.
We meant immigrants.
And we're like, oh, so you're discriminating now.
So I guess there's some kind of good aliens and then bad aliens, is what you're saying.
And that feels a little bit, you know.
I for one am fully supportive of our LGBTQ plus dead aliens, DA, dead aliens, and I think all of them should be respected and they should all have a sanctuary in New York City with my cousin Eric Adams.
That's what I say.
Alright, well, the great thing about The impeachment process is that now that you can see how the machine works, and what I mean by the machine is you can see, you know, that the fact checkers and the watchdogs are fake Democrat groups, and always have been, or not always, but in recent history they have been.
You can see how the news conforms to whatever the White House tells them to say.
And here's a perfect example, as Jonathan Turley is pointing out, So there's this draft letter by the Biden White House Legal Counsel in which they're talking to the media and telling the media to, quote, ramp up their scrutiny of House Republicans, quote, for opening an impeachment inquiry based on lies.
This is the Biden White House telling the media how to report the story.
And then CNN obeyed and reported the story that way.
Like immediately.
Wow.
So here again you can see the machine.
So the machine is that the White House tells the media how to report a story, and then the various watchdogs will report Republicans for having, you know, if they have any pushback on that.
The ADL will call them anti-Semites.
They don't need a reason.
They just will.
The SPLC will say that it's a hate group.
Somebody will tar them with past associations.
I mean, you see the whole machine.
And is it an accident that thousand-year-old aliens were discovered at exactly the day the headlines were about something embarrassing to the Democrats?
Kind of a big old coincidence, especially since we expect it.
How many of you could have predicted that the day the impeachment inquiry is announced, there would be a major UFO story?
Was that predictable?
We all literally predicted it.
Didn't we actually predict it out loud?
I feel like we actually said it out loud.
I don't remember if I said it, but I feel like it was in the atmosphere that people were saying, oh, it's going to be more UFO, a lot more UFO sightings if this impeachment thing gets going.
People said that directly and that it happened exactly on cue.
Now, am I wrong that we can all see the gears of the machine now?
We can all see that our entities that are supposed to be protecting us are apparently captured, captured by the industries that are supposed to be regulating.
And I loved Nancy Pelosi's answer to, I'm just slightly changing the subject, to the insider trading that members of Congress do, which is totally legal.
And she said, hey, free market.
It's totally legal to make investments based on what you know in Congress that the public doesn't yet know.
She goes, free market, totally legal.
Is there anything else you need to know?
Do you think the members of Congress beat the average return of the S&P 500?
Oh, yeah.
Oh, yeah, they did.
Yes, they did.
Alright, here's how Oliver Darcy of CNN talks about this impeachment inquiry.
Now, remember I've told you there are designated liars and spinners?
And there's some people who always go first.
When the narrative they're putting out is a little bit ridiculous.
And Oliver Darcy is one of those, as soon as you see his name, it's like Colin Steffensen.
Or Oliver Darcy.
You see those two names, you go, oh, okay.
This is going to be the spinniest spin of all spins.
I'm not saying there's nobody on the right who does the same thing.
I'm just saying there's some names that you immediately associate with, you know, not a straight shooter.
So here he says they also talked about the letter from the White House that was asking reporters to talk about it a certain way.
And Darcy says the letter, which said an impeachment inquiry with no supporting evidence should set off alarm bells for news organizations.
So he's admitting that this letter exists and what it says.
And they refer to, Oliver Darcy refers to, have denied that disgraced former President Donald Trump committed any wrongdoing.
So he's talking about the Republicans, have long denied that, quote, disgraced former President Donald Trump.
Disgraced?
Disgraced by whom?
By CNN?
Do his supporters think he's disgraced?
Do you think there's any opinion in that?
Disgraced.
And CNN's using the trick that I always say that Alex Jones and Hannity use, which is just, you sort of state something as fact and then keep going.
Yeah, he's a disgraced president and let's talk about something else.
Just accept the disgraced part with no evidence.
But they say that, Darcy goes on and says, That they're baselessly portraying Biden as a corrupt, crime-ridden politician engaged in sinister activities.
Baselessly.
Do you think baselessly is still the word you should be using?
So we went from no direct evidence to now baseless?
What makes it baseless?
That's a nice generic word, isn't it?
Baseless?
Do you know what baseless does not include?
No evidence.
So we've gone from no evidence, nothing wrong, to no evidence, to no direct evidence, to baseless.
Do you know what baseless does?
It allows you to ignore some evidence.
You could say, well, there's evidence, but the evidence is baseless, too.
Or it doesn't apply.
So you can go from a mountain of evidence, which is actually what the reality is, there's a mountain of evidence.
You've got emails, you've got bank records, you've got testimony of people who were there.
You've got the whole thing.
So it's hard to imagine how there could be more evidence.
But you can call it baseless.
Is that what they called the laptop?
Did they call the laptop baseless as well?
Baseless means that CNN itself is not going to tell you it's true.
Baseless just means that other people say it's true.
And CNN is not going to say it's true.
So, anyway.
I don't know if I needed to tell you that the aliens in Mexico are not real.
Does anybody think that the aliens in Mexico are real corpses of aliens?
Anybody?
No.
And what's up with their elbows?
Have you noticed that their bones are connected?
What kind of an alien corpse?
If you were to find a human, would the front of the arm still be connected to the back of the arm in a thousand years?
Isn't this all connecting stuff?
Doesn't that all rot and you have two separate bones?
Oh, but not the aliens.
They're all connected.
They got a nice clean little corpse.
All the parts are intact.
Because I guess that's the way the aliens rot.
Totally different to the way the people do.
Yeah, their bones were probably fused by all of those rapid movements in their ships that cannot be explained by normal physics.
Yep, it fused their bones and then they died and then we found them.
That's probably what happened.
All right.
Do you all know Owen Schroyer?
I think he worked for Alex Jones.
He got three months in jail for not even being on the Capitol grounds for January 6th.
Or something like that.
Whatever it is, it's something you wouldn't expect somebody to go to jail for.
So, would you all agree that he's a political prisoner?
That his conviction looks sketchy?
I think every one of you, right?
Do you think there's even one Democrat who even knows his name or knows that he's being treated this way?
I'll bet there's not one.
I'll bet you could walk down any street all day long and they would not know.
They would not know that any of the January 6th people who were non-violent were even in jail.
They wouldn't even know.
They certainly would have never heard of Owen Schroyer.
And they certainly would not be aware of the degree, you know, the extent of his penalty for what little he did.
Yeah.
So, this is amazing.
You know, did you ever think you would live in a country where you have legitimate political prisoners and it's being done right in front of you?
Like, I didn't really think we would ever get here.
Honestly, I thought that was way beyond where America could ever slide to, but here we are.
These are genuine political prisoners.
Now, the next part of this is, is there an adjustment?
The big test of America is coming up.
So, America is not a country that makes no mistakes.
Nobody would believe that, right?
We're not a country that makes no mistakes.
I would say what identifies American exceptionalism, if I could just be a, if I could be a overly, you know, cringely patriotic for anybody who's not American watching this, I know it feels uncomfortable.
It always feels uncomfortable watching someone else's nationalism.
Have you ever noticed that?
It feels a little bit like they're defining themselves as separate from you.
It feels a little creepy.
But one of the things I've always appreciated about America is not that we don't mess up, because we do, but we're unusually good at correcting.
We're unusually good at saying, OK, we messed up.
We're idiots.
All right, I'm an idiot.
You're an idiot.
We're all stupid idiots.
Let's just do this better.
And I'm not sure every country can do that.
I think there's a different approach to failure, frankly.
I think that we fail better than other countries.
Like, we fail elegantly.
Do you remember when the first, was the first one or two SpaceX rockets just fell over and blew up?
Like complete failure?
And now SpaceX is landing rockets and shooting them up every day and planning for Mars.
Now that's an elegant failure.
That's a failure, that's an American failure.
Because it was, what we learned from it, and Musk learned from it, was enough to make it a success.
So the failing is part of the, it's an American feature.
We fail harder and faster and more elegantly, we fail more elegantly than anybody else.
That's my claim.
Yeah, and our entire entrepreneurial startup culture is 95% failure pretty quickly.
But we make that work.
So our startups work because we can fail so aggressively and then just get up and try again and fail some more until something works.
I'm not sure you can do that in China.
I don't know that you can do that in Japan.
We do have a just a huge advantage in our, let's say, tolerance for a good attempt.
That's the best way to say it.
We have maximum tolerance for a good try.
I just don't know that that's everywhere.
Now, so this brings me back to our current situation.
I've never seen the country in more dire You know, fascist-looking situation than I see now, where the party in power does seem to be able to control the media, does seem to have control, often through ESG and DEI and other things, on corporations, and that's fascist by definition.
Glenn Greenwald was pointing out that MSNBC was fascist by definition, Because they were, you know, taking instructions from, you know, the government basically.
Basically operating like an arm of the government.
You know, classic fascism.
Now, so here's the real question.
Are we going to be America and correct it?
Because that's what we do.
What we do is we screw up and then we correct it no matter how hard it is because that's what we do.
So that's what the election is about.
Now, normally, if our elections were fair and free and the media were not corrupted, we would have a correcting mechanism built into the system.
There would be an election, the other party would win, and then they'd maybe create their own problems that have to be solved the next time.
But at least they'd fix the current ones, maybe create a few more of their own.
But at the moment, we don't have any At least my audience.
We don't have a lot of optimism that our elections are even legitimate.
Is that a fair statement?
Would you, in the comments, is it fair to say we don't, we don't, we don't automatically assume it's legitimate.
We don't know.
But the not knowing is the problem.
We also know we won't know next time either.
No matter what happens next, we're not going to know.
How would we know if it's fair?
There's no mechanism for that.
So this is different.
So we don't just need to solve the problem.
We need to solve the entire mechanism, the machine that got us to this point.
So we have to re-engineer the machine.
And, you know, are we going to be nimble enough and smart enough and work hard enough and take enough pain that we can change the machine?
Well, I would like to offer you this following observation, if you want some optimism.
Have you noticed that some of the strongest voices on at least social media have something in common?
There's something in common that the so-called internet dads, I like to use that term, seem to have in common.
We've all been fired, cancelled, or disgraced.
And you would say to yourself, well, that certainly takes you off the field.
Or does it?
Or does it give you freedom of speech?
Or does it allow you to go to the mat, where otherwise you would have said, I've got other things to do.
I'm not going to push this button any further or I'll get in trouble.
Let's suppose you've already gotten as much trouble as you could possibly be in.
What then?
Well, I would argue that the system is creating a counterforce that it didn't want to create.
Meaning that the more people get cancelled, the more freedom of speech they get and the bigger their audience.
And so you're seeing now the sort of the rise of the people describing the machine.
Have you ever seen this before?
You know that when I when I look at a Glenn Greenwald tweet, he's usually describing the interplay of the components of the machine in a way that we didn't really even talk about it when I was a kid.
So we've moved from a what is the machine doing?
You know, where did it take us?
To how is it built?
Like, how is this thing connected to this other part of the machine?
This is new.
And it's because a lot of the people who are the cancelled people are also unusually analytical.
Now, I would put Elon Musk at the top of my list for somebody they're trying to cancel as hard as possible.
I mean, he's got every cancellation force on him.
But he's also showing you how the machine works.
That's what the X files were, right?
The Twitter files?
They were showing you how the machine works, and then he showed you that he re-engineered the machine right in front of you.
The machine being Twitter, now called X, but he's still in the process of re-engineering it so that the algorithm is not distorted.
That's different.
When you see a Mike Cernovich tweet, It is far less likely to be just some opinion and far more likely to be opening the hood so you can see how the gears are working.
And then you really get bad when you see the gears.
When I do my live streams, I'm more often talking about the mechanism than the outcome.
So there's this whole army of people who have been exposed to seeing how the whole machine works, how hoaxes are created.
So I've described to you, maybe as much as anybody has, how a hoax is created.
You know what a root bar is, right?
So here's the thing that's forming that I've never heard anybody talk about, which is there's an entire army of people being educated on how the machine is constructed.
Now that would be the base requirement for changing it or dismantling it.
So you're seeing the forces come into play that would be the necessary forces to push back on the worst abuses.
But those forces are not up to strength.
So the reason you're not seeing something like a fair fight yet is that the rising forces that are the counter force are not up to full strength.
But they're definitely heading in that direction.
I mean, this time last year I had, you know, far fewer Twitter followers.
So people like me, who are trying to explain the mechanisms and how it all fits together, and how you've been abused, and how people are abused, and how persuasion works, and how propaganda works, and which characters are the designated liars, and which ones maybe can be credible sometimes, and how do you know that one source is fake news, and how do you know the other is not?
These are things you never saw ten years ago.
Compare anything you heard 10 years ago to what you commonly experience when you get on this live stream or get onto X. Yeah, it's more about the machinery.
So as more people learn the machine, that should change how they act and vote and how they perceive the world.
So there's big stuff happening.
So if the so-called internet dads, which would include women, You know, if they all get taken out, there's a problem.
But so far, many of them refused to die.
The more you cancel us, the stronger we get.
All right.
Russia got missiles.
New York Times, which, of course, cannot be trusted.
See?
Again.
Instead of just telling you that the New York Times reported on something, I remind you that it's part of a constellation of non-credible, Democrat-oriented media.
That's completely different than how the news used to be talked about in the past.
Yeah, community notes is a big part of correcting things.
Anyway, so the New York Times says that Russia has overcome their sanctions and exports problems, and they just used third, you know, third countries as their cutout.
So Russia can't buy stuff to build missiles, but some other country can, so the other country does it for Russia, they buy it, Russia buys it from them, everything's fine.
Apparently, the American The goal of degrading Russia's military capabilities turned into forcing Russia into hyper developing their military capabilities so they're better than ever.
That's right.
Their tank building and missile building capabilities are way better than before the war.
Now they may have less stuff, But their production ability is way above where it was before the war.
Now some of that's necessity, of course.
But apparently we didn't slow them down.
Apparently all these sanctions are bullshit.
Because we've sanctioned so many countries that they have their own economy.
If everybody got along except there was one bad country, and then everybody sanctioned the bad country, that would totally work.
But if you start sanctioning a quarter of all the countries in the world, or at least you don't embrace them, then they create their own alternate economy.
Iran and Russia and their little satellites and stuff.
Now Kim Jong-un just visited Putin.
So now Kim Jong-un's capacity will be part of the mix.
So probably.
Do you think that Kim Jong-un would have met with Putin if Trump had been president?
Well, there probably wouldn't be a war, so there wouldn't be any reason for him to meet, but I've got a feeling he wouldn't.
I've got a feeling he wouldn't, because he wouldn't want to make Trump mad.
Yeah.
All right, so yeah, Russia's got missiles.
Winter's coming.
The Ukrainian offensive appears to be a big nothing.
But like I always say, when you're talking about war, the big nothing could turn into the big something overnight because all of our information is sketchy.
And there's a lot of things that might be near a failure point.
You never know until it fails.
But it does look like the Honestly, it doesn't look like a war anymore to me.
I've been saying this for a while.
But the Ukraine situation is now killing young men, mostly, in a waiting game.
We're basically just waiting for the next American administration.
Does that sound too simplistic?
To me, it looks like both sides are doing nothing but waiting for the 2024 election.
Because there's no way Ukraine can do anything but what they're doing, which is breaking even, if they're lucky.
And Russia doesn't seem to have an ambition for going beyond, at the moment, the stuff that they already hold.
So it's obvious that Russia is just waiting for Trump.
Wouldn't you say?
Isn't that like a hundred percent obvious that Russia's just gonna wait till Trump?
So literally every person who dies between now and the time that Trump ends this thing, if that's the way it goes, every person who dies between now and then was unnecessary.
In the most, yeah, you could argue they were all unnecessary, everybody who died, but nothing would be more unnecessary than a war that both sides know is over.
Both sides.
They know it's over.
You think they don't know it?
Of course they know it.
Of course they do.
They know the war's over.
They're just grinding up young men until the timing is right to say what they need to say and end the thing.
It's a baseless war, somebody says.
Baseless.
Alright, what else is happening?
Here's something that shouldn't surprise you at all.
So you know all those decongestants you've been buying at your drugstore?
It says decongestant right on it.
Well, they used to have something called pseudoephedrine or something.
But since that was an ingredient in meth, and the meth addicts were stealing... Do I have the right thing?
Yeah.
So the addicts and the druggies were stealing it off the shelves and then they were using it to make their meth.
So the part that you could make meth out of was removed and replaced with phenylephrine.
And the FDA said that all those products that you've been taking for years as decongestants that have this phenylephrine, not one of them works.
Because the active ingredient doesn't do anything.
That's the FDA.
The FDA just said all of those products that say decongestant don't work.
And never have.
You never have after they change the active ingredient.
Never have.
So...
Now, let me be careful, because some of you are going to have, you know, colds and stuff, and then you're going to say, oh, Scott said these don't work.
I'm only talking about things that say decongestant.
If it's something that says something else, it might still work, right?
If it says something, something, something plus decongestant, it's possible that the something, something works, but not the decongestant part.
So I'm not saying that all the drugs are useless.
Only the ones that have phenylepine and say decongestant, according to the FDA.
So, how many of you think that's a big surprise?
Anybody?
Anybody think that's a big surprise?
Nope?
Nope, nope, nope.
Yeah, you know what?
The type of story that I have the least trust in is one like this.
I'll just give you a generic.
If you see a story that says, new study says that some existing medication will work for even more people than we thought before.
Like we thought that if you had a slight sniffle that you should take it, but now it's even before the sniffle you should take it.
Those stories are always just marketing for the company who makes the drug.
So there was a time in history where high blood pressure was considered over a certain level.
And the people over that level got medicated for their high blood pressure.
And then, well, surprise!
This will surprise all of you.
There was some new science that showed that maybe that existing drug, or that class of drugs, would be good at even much lower levels of high blood pressure.
Huh?
Huh?
Something that would, you know, double or triple your income if you were making that product.
Huh?
So do you think that's science?
Who knows?
Who knows?
I might die in front of you any moment because, you know, my blood pressure at least one point was high enough that it should have been treated.
And I decided that I didn't believe science.
So I'm not taking them.
Now, if I weighed, you know, 200 pounds and, you know, if I were in generally bad health, I probably would reconsider this and definitely don't take my advice.
Let me say this as clearly as possible.
If you take my medical advice, you're crazy.
I'm just guessing.
I don't have any medical experience.
I'm just telling you that I just don't believe anything anymore.
When it comes from the pharma industry, I just don't believe anything.
So if somebody says you should take this drug that has a side effect, I say, maybe not.
Maybe not.
So but don't don't follow my advice for sure.
All right.
Half of the country thinks there's no evidence of any Biden impropriety.
But here are the things we know.
Bank records.
We know that Hunter Biden was paying Joe's bills.
We know that Joe Biden had no identifiable income that would allow him to have the big houses that he has or the lifestyle he has.
We know that the family members got millions.
We know that they were producing no real product.
We know that Hunter was giving 10% to the big guy.
And we know that Joe Biden was aware of Hunter's business and lied about it.
Now that's what the Democrats are calling no evidence.
Or as they're modifying it, well no evidence before he was president.
Definitely no evidence before he was sworn in.
The Tapper Tilt.
Has anybody watched Jake Tapper to see if he's doing the Tapper Tell?
move his head sideways like that?
I get a lot of comments to talk about the allegations of family sexual improprieties, but I'm just not going to go there.
Because I know what you saw, and I know what you saw.
That's a category that I don't think is fair game.
That's just not fair game.
Let me tell you a rule that I have.
If you find out that somebody said something terrible in a private conversation that nobody would have ever seen, let's say it was an email or a message, and nobody would have ever seen it except let's say there was some legal action that surfaced it.
Or somebody sent it to somebody.
In my opinion, The person who said that terrible thing privately is free.
There should be no... You should not judge anybody for anything they said privately.
Period.
At all.
No matter how much you hate it.
Private conversations just have to stay that way.
You know, it could be like the worst... I don't know.
You could be confessing to a crime privately.
And I still would say, it's private.
That's a private conversation.
Because people don't always tell the truth privately.
It doesn't mean it's proof.
And I just think private conversations should remain private.
Just all the time.
Yeah, like grab them by the... Yeah, exactly.
Well, I guess some people were surprised that even Jake Tapper is calling Joe Biden a liar for lying in the debate with Trump.
That his son had made no money from China when it's obvious that they had.
So even CNN.
And I think the Washington Post fact checker might be on the same page.
So is that suggesting that the Bidens are done?
Or Joe Biden's done?
I think it does.
I think it does suggest that.
Or at least that there are people who don't want him to.
You know, be in the race.
All right.
There's a new study Dr. Malone was tweeting about that suggests that COVID does not cause myocarditis and that only the vaccinations do.
And that, once again, we find that Fauci lied.
I feel like it's just the same story every time I wake up.
Let's see, there's a new study and the upshot of the new study is that Fauci lied.
Fauci lied.
Next day I wake up, there's a new study and the upshot of it is, what's... Fauci lied.
Have we now determined that Fauci was wrong about 100% of everything he said?
I think it's 100%, isn't it?
Like everything.
And now there's a story about, what's the story about the CIA trying to cover up the lab or the COVID origin story?
I don't know if any of that's true.
So the one thing that we know about the pandemic is that 100% of what we were told was not true.
All of it.
Just all of it was not true.
Or it was based on people's best guess, and they guessed wrong, which is a different thing.
I'll tell you what the oddest thing I hear is this, because it doesn't comport with my memory.
Because we found out we were lied to in so many ways, and that maybe the death toll wasn't what we thought, maybe it was other causes, and blah blah blah, People have taken that to mean that we should not have used any mitigating processes.
Does that make sense?
That based on what we know now, we should not have done anything special.
We should have just gone on with our lives.
How many think that makes sense?
Based on today's knowledge, does that make sense?
Well, here's my memory of it.
I'm going to test my memory against yours because we probably all have false memories.
My memory was that we were not doing any of the shutdowns to per se save lives directly.
I thought we were doing the shutdowns to keep our medical services from crashing and that it might have done that.
How many of you think that we didn't flatten the curve?
We probably did flatten the curve.
It's just that the curve was still like this.
It might have been like that.
So we might have moved it from like this to like that.
We didn't flatten it.
But it was maybe a little flatter.
So I thought the entire game was keeping our health care system from crashing.
And I don't think anybody has proven that that didn't work.
So we can prove that we did everything wrong and that we were lied to about everything, but there's no way to know that a little social distancing didn't at least slow things down.
Am I wrong?
Am I wrong about that?
All right, the people who say that I'm wrong, let me tell you how the news fools you.
Suppose you did a study of how quickly the virus, you know, caught on.
Do you think you could compare any two places?
Like Sweden compared to something else?
Does that still seem like a good comparison to you?
No.
If you still think that Sweden did the right thing because they had a good outcome, that's completely non-factual.
It might be true, but the evidence doesn't show that.
What the evidence shows is that Sweden was different from the rest of the world in lots of ways.
So you can't really compare one country that's different from the world in lots of ways, including a lot less obesity, Apparently in Sweden, it's common to have two homes.
You know, sort of a summer home, winter home situation.
If you have two homes, your social distancing could be almost completely good.
If you have a younger population, if you have a population in Sweden, they supplement vitamin D. Because they know they don't have the right sun situation.
So the Swedes routinely supplement vitamin D.
Are you telling me that wouldn't be a big difference?
Everything we know suggests there would be a big difference.
So if you had thinner people who naturally have distance, and they supplement with vitamin D, and then you compare them to America, that's crazy.
You can't compare them.
So I will say this, I'm not willing to say that the shutdowns were worthwhile.
I'm not willing to say that, because I don't think there's evidence that shows that they were worthwhile.
I have not seen it.
But there's also not evidence to show that it didn't work a little bit.
And maybe a little bit was enough to keep our healthcare system barely working.
Remember, in my case, I had to put off a surgery for a year, I think.
My memory is failing.
But I think I had to put off a surgery for like a year.
And that really fucked me up.
I mean my health outcome for two years were degraded because of putting that off for a year.
Because I had to get on prednisone and then getting off of prednisone was a problem in itself.
So, I don't know.
I would say that everything was a lie.
But if you're judging the performance, you should judge it against, did it keep the healthcare system alive?
You know, the conspiracy theory I'm most interested in lately is, were the deaths caused by the treatment?
In other words, the ventilators.
Were the ventilators killing people?
I mean, we know that they were used improperly, in some cases they were, but how much of the whole story does that explain?
Did the desks drop off a hill as soon as they stopped using ventilators?
It's hard to know.
Yeah, it's hard to know.
I don't know.
Hard to know.
Let's just agree we don't believe anybody about anything.
So everything we know.
Here's the other analytical error that I see almost everybody making.
You ready?
An analytical error that almost everybody made.
And it doesn't mean you made the wrong decision.
You might have ended up in the right place.
But here's the analytical error.
The vaccination was insufficiently tested and a novel type.
Therefore, there was a lot of risk.
Would you agree with that?
Vaccinations were novel.
They were not tested sufficiently.
There was a lot of money involved.
Basically every possible situation to make it sketchy.
So you'd all agree that the vaccinations had an obvious risk.
Obvious risk.
Everybody agree?
It was really, really obvious.
Okay.
So if you were going to take an obvious risk, you'd want to make sure that that was a better deal than not doing anything.
Now the not doing anything, we were told, meant that you would get COVID without whatever protections they were promising you that maybe weren't real, right?
So you had the second risk was the COVID itself.
And during that time, we were told that the COVID had sketchy origins that may have been military in nature.
As in, if it's designed, it's designed to be worse.
And if it's designed, it may be designed to kill you sooner or later, etc.
So, I think that a lot of people said, let's look at the vaccination by itself.
Does the vaccination introduce a new risk that wasn't there?
Yes.
It's a whole brand new risk that if you don't take it, you don't have any of those, you don't risk any of those outcomes if you don't take it.
But then people stopped.
And they said, I'd rather just get the virus.
But what did you know about the virus?
See, this is where I differed from most people.
I said to myself, there is no way to know if getting the virus without whatever little protection the vaccination might give you, before Omicron.
Omicron's a whole different story.
But when it was Alpha and Delta, The experts were saying, and maybe they were incorrect, but they were saying that it would give you some protection from the virus, the worst outcomes.
Now that might not be true.
I'm not going to claim that they're right about that.
Everything seems sketchy at this point.
But the risk of a weaponized, potentially weaponized, military virus is what you should have compared to the risk of the vaccination itself.
So here's another way to look at that.
You would be comparing two complete unknowns.
These are complete unknowns.
How could you have confidence comparing two complete unknowns?
Most people did.
Most people had confidence.
Yeah.
So here's what I Here's my analysis.
I said there are two unknowns.
One is a vaccination that is designed by people who, in the best case, is meant to protect you.
They may be wrong, they may get that terribly wrong, but the intention was to protect you.
The virus, based on everything we still know, if it were designed, and it looks like it was, it was designed to make your outcomes worse.
So you have two unknowns.
One is an unknown, but an intention to make you healthier.
One is an unknown, but the intention is to kill you, or to make you sick forever.
So if you have two unknowns, but you can tell the intention behind each of them, Does it make sense to take the one where the intention was to keep you healthy, even if they're wrong, versus the one where the intention was to kill you, even if they didn't design it strong enough to do it?
Again, there's no way to know that's the right decision.
So do you know what I do when the actual decision cannot be measured and compared?
Here's how I make the decision.
I go down a level, I say, all right, there's no way I can say which one is bigger.
So I go down a level and I say, is there anything else about the situation where I could have a certainty?
Since the two biggest variables are complete unknowns, is there anything that's like second level down that matters a lot?
That I couldn't be sure about.
And it turns out there was.
The one thing I could be sure about is that at the time, if you got a vaccination, you could travel internationally.
That was the only thing I was sure about.
So since the unknowns were complete unknowns and can't be compared, I go down a level and I made the same decision that Dr. Malone made.
Dr. Malone, knowing all the risks, he's literally the expert, Knowing all the risks, but also knowing that the COVID itself is a risk, he decided that he would not get the vaccination until he needed it to travel internationally.
That's what I did.
Same thing.
Now, did I make the right decision?
I don't know.
I know that I don't have any identifiable medical problems that would be some kind of vaccination or even COVID related.
At the moment, I'm in perfect health.
So did I make the right decision?
No way to know.
And no way I'll ever know, really.
Well, I suppose if I got myocarditis now, it'd look suspicious.
So I didn't get the boosters.
Do you know why I didn't get the boosters?
Because the boosters were pure risk against Omicron that was looking increasingly like it didn't matter, and I didn't need to travel.
Didn't need to travel.
So that was it.
Now, and of course I was, I had a comorbidity that other people didn't have.
So I have asthma.
I'm not sure if that was really a comorbidity after all, but the experts were saying it probably was because, you know, lungs, you know, you don't want to have weak lungs and also get, you know, a lung problem.
So, And then there are a number of people who irrationally believe that whatever their own medical situation was can be generalized to mine.
What kind of analysis is that?
That you're 25 and you've decided not to get vaccinated, so you're a hero, compared to me who has no medical bad outcomes, but I got to travel internationally the two best trips of my life because no place was busy.
I mean, I had literally the two best trips of my life because of getting vaccinated.
So, I may have guessed wrong.
That's entirely possible.
If I had a choice, if you gave me a choice and I were born today, if there were no past and there were no decisions where I didn't know anything when I made them, and I could just be born today, Would I choose to have the vaccination in me?
No.
No, no, no, no.
No.
Because I'm already past whatever Omicron or whatever risk there was with Alpha and Delta.
I'm not too worried about Omicron.
I already had it.
Did someone say this is a cope?
I think the NPC copers are having a tough time.
Cope.
Cope.
All right.
I think that cope is now the best, probably the best tell for cognitive dissonance.
I think those of you who are clever just heard my whole description and said, OK, that makes total sense.
But the ones who are saying cope, cope, are the ones who realized that their own analysis was bullshit and that they made a life and death decision incorrectly.
So they're yelling at me, cope, because they made a life and death decision without knowing how to make decisions.
That's dangerous.
Now, did you make the right decision?
Possibly.
Possibly.
And I've never taken that away from anybody, have I?
You've never seen me say it was a wrong or right decision to get vaccinated or not.
I've never even weighed in on that.
I've only told you what I did.
I've never recommended it for anybody else.
So, if you were bad at making a decision, and I just taught you that, then the way to prove that would be to say, cope.
Anybody else want to say it?
Anybody else want to acknowledge their cognitive dissonance?
I let the YouTube people comment today, so you can see all the cope, cope.
Well, I would, I would say to you that you may have to cope with your bad decision-making capabilities, but it could be that you made the right decision accidentally.
It's possible.
And Christian says, I think our decisions are emotionally driven first with a logical veneer.
That is correct, most of the time.
That would be true when one of the decisions had an emotional element to it.
In my case, I would say the emotional element was a tie, since I had a fear of vaccinations, which I described quite directly for months before I got one.
So I had a fear of vaccinations, but I also had a fear of alpha and delta.
So they were sort of equal fears.
So I would say when you don't have the fear pushing you in one direction, then your little bit of rational abilities can kick in.
But you're never quite sure if you're being rational.
You had a bigger fear of the vaccination.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I had for today.
If you have not picked up your copy of Reframe Your Brain, the best book ever written, according to everybody who's read it.
Every single person.
Every single person.
Okay, maybe not every person, but a lot of people say it's the best book they've ever read.
And they're buying copies, three, ten copies.
Oh, I would advise you, since you're the special people watching my livestream, because I'm independently published, It means they sort of make the books when they're needed.
They don't have a big warehouse just waiting for you to order the book.
So if you're looking for Christmas presents and or Thanksgiving gifts, I think there's like a month delivery delay on the hardcover.
So if you want the softcover, that'll be faster.
The audiobook and the Kindle are available.
Right away.
But the hardcover, if you want that because it's sort of the best gift form, you should order that right away for Christmas.
And I would advise you that for the price, it's sort of the perfect gift for everybody over 14.
You know, it's better, you know, maybe 19 is better than 14.
But if you've got a 14-year-old who's extra smart, you know, you give them a little head start.
All right.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is all I have for today.
