Episode 1634 Scott Adams: The Day We Found Out Our Government Lied About 100% of Everything

Welcome to the highlight of your whole damn life. Yes, everything from the moment of your conception has been pointing at this moment. Good luck. You made it. You made it all the way. From the that spunky little sperm that made it to the egg. And from there, an unbroken chain of cause and effect brought you to me. Well, it's about time. And. And how would you like to take it up another notch? Of course. Of course you would. All you need is a cup or a mugger, a glass of tanker jellice, and style of canteen, jug of flask, vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure. The dopamine hit of the day. It's the thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip. And watch it do its work. Now go. Oh, yeah. All right. The most important story of the day is. Follow up. You heard the story a few days ago. A hundred monkeys were in a truck on the way to a lab in Pennsylvania, and there was a traffic mishap of some kind, and some monkeys escaped. Some monkeys escaped. But we have good news about the monkeys. They have all been identified. So we know where all the monkeys are now. They haven't all been collected up because it turns out that several of the monkeys were able to integrate into society and take jobs. So in case you're wondering what kind of jobs the monkeys got, three of them are fact checkers for Facebook, two of them are in charge of emergency use authorizations for Covid, and one of them is Joe Biden's speechwriter, specifically for his open mic comments. They already had a speechwriter for his regular speeches, but they needed someone for the open mic situations. So one of those monkeys filled in. And I don't know if you heard, but that monkey is killing it. That monkey is really doing a good job. For example, you may know that yesterday, Peter, was it Peter? Yeah. Peter Doocy asked a question of Joe Biden at an event. An event. I don't know, a press conference or something. And Ducey yelled as people were filing out. He said, Mr. President, I'm paraphrasing. Do you think that inflation will be a political liability going into the midterms? Biden, thinking that his microphone might have been off or maybe he didn't. Maybe he thought it was on. Who knows? Muttered under his breath without moving his lips, kind of like a ventriloquist. Yeah, inflation's an asset. Stupid son of a bitch. Now, I suppose I'm supposed to be all offended or something. About his terrible choice of language. I don't find anything that I don't like about this story. If ever there were a story where every bit of it was good, from the left, from the right, like every, every part of it, I've never seen a story that I like. All of it. All right? And there's more to it. So, number one, was it a dumb question? Yes. Yes. Because nobody thinks that inflation is going to be a positive. But of course, the point of asking questions to the President is not that you don't know the answer. Right. That's not why you ask the question. You ask the question to make him, you know, expand on it, to get him on record for something. So it's not so much that you need the information. It's not like Peter Doocy was thinking, oh, I wonder if inflation is a good thing. No, he was just trying to get him on record. But you can see that Biden's irritation with that kind of question, completely understandable. My impression of Biden, I have to tell you, went up. It went up. I'm not going to be the guy who says, I liked it when Trump was offensive sounding and I don't like Biden is. I liked it both. I like this version of Biden and I would love to find out that he knew that the microphone was on. Wouldn't that be the best? You find out later. Oh, yeah, he knew it was on. He planned this all along. That would have been just kind of awesome, I think. I don't think that's the case. Yeah, I don't think that's the case. But then you wonder, how do people handle criticisms like this from the President of the United States? Well, Peter Doocy went on the Five yesterday. He was talking to Jesse Waters, and when asked about it, Peter Doocy, when asked about being called a stupid son of a bitch, Peter Doocy smiled and said, well, nobody's fact checked it and said it wasn't true. That, my friends, is a triple plus handling of a, of a situation. Now, the fact that his smile, when he said it looked genuine, it didn't look so much like maybe, maybe he had practiced the line, I don't know. But it didn't look like he felt like he was in any kind of stress. Am I right? He looked like he had a good day. Because I think he did. Yeah. Honestly, if a president called me a stupid son of a bitch in front of the world and it trended, that would be a good day. Am I right? Is there anybody who would disagree with that? If the President of the United States called you out specifically and remember, he was insulting the question, really. Right. And the question isn't really, you know, supposed to be a real question in the first place. So, yeah, we like Biden 5% better this morning because of. Because of that. And I think Peter Doocy came out looking good, too. So everybody won. You know, you hardly ever get a story where everybody wins, but everybody won this time. We got entertained and nobody got hurt. So good job, everybody. Speaking of how to handle criticism, we got this suggestion from a Twitter user called Danoz and Denoise suggests that Biden should get a new dog and name it Brandon. But to expand on that idea, Adam Dopamine on Twitter gave us this visualization. Picture it boarding Marine One. Biden turns around, whistles and shouts, let's go, Brandon. A black lab with a red bandana sprints down from the White House and into the chopper. Politics aside, that level of trolling would be epic. Poll numbers up 7% overnight. Yep, yep, right on target. If, if Biden got a dog and named it Brandon and said, let's go, Brandon, every time you sell the dog, it would totally be funny and it would totally diffuse that whole situation. It would be absolutely the right thing to do as long as you wanted a dog. You know, you don't want him to get a dog just for the political part of it, but if you like the dog, that'd be good news. Well, Kirsten Sinema and Arizona senator is in a little, little bit of trouble. There's a group called Voto Latino, at least on Twitter. Apparently it's a real group, and they're doing a Remove Senator Cinema campaign. So they're launching the hashtag Adios Cinema campaign, committed to getting rid of her and for blocking voting rights. Now, here's my question to you. Isn't this foreign interference in our elections? Am I wrong? Now, I'm not saying that the group doing it Voto Latino, I'm not saying that they're not American, because they probably are. I mean, they're highly visible. They're doing this. I assume it's Americans, but who are they doing it for? Am I reading too much between the lines? Aren't they doing it for the benefit of non citizens? Isn't that really sort of the point of it, or am I missing the point? Yeah, I mean, I don't know that they express it that way. They would act like they're helping the Latino or as they say, Latinx population. But really, aren't those voting rights really sort of Aimed at allowing people who are not citizens at least some access to voting. It feels like that's, you know, not the stated purpose, but it seems like that's the purpose, so. But quite seriously, am I wrong that this looks like foreign interference? Because this would be empowering people who are non citizens to vote in our election? How is this legal? I'm actually curious. Well, under the category of everything you used to think is right is wrong, which will, I think, eventually apply to literally everything. Literally everything you thought was right is wrong. How many of you thought that Israel was having a giant spike in infections even though everybody is vaccinated? How many think that's true? Giant spike in infections even though maybe the highest vaccination rate. How many think that's actually happening? I see yeses, I see no's, I see trues. I mean, it's wildly believed to be true. Right? Have you seen the graph? I mean the graph is just the hockey stick, the infections on the graph, the data out of Israel which would show that the number of infections just went through the roof while at the same time they're highly vaccinated. Give me a fact check. True or false? Israel has one of the highest vaccination rates, if not the highest, and they also have a giant surge in infection rate. True? True. Okay, here's something else that's true. At the same time they had that giant increase in infections, it's perfectly correlated when they massively increased testing. True or false, that the massive increase in infections coincidentally matched the massive increase in new testing. True, I think, I mean, that's an item from the news today. So there's a fact check on that, saying that it just corresponded with more testing. So that that's basically. That's all we know. There was more testing. So put that in the category of everything you think is clear and obvious and true. It's probably wrong. Probably wrong. And maybe home testing, somebody says, yeah, that might be part of it. All right, let's talk about the rogue doctors. Dr. McCullough making some claims. I'm not even going to mention them, but they would be, you know, let's say non standard claims about vaccinations and, and the pandemic. It doesn't even matter what his claim is. Do you think that people who are credible debunked all of his claims within minutes of them hitting Twitter? Yes, they did. Can I tell if the debunks are more credible than what the doctor said? No, I can't. So all I know is that he said some things that Sounded pretty convincing. And all I know is the people who debunked it also sounded pretty convincing. They also did. So I'm going to say I don't know. I don't know. I usually believe the debunkers. That's my bias. I'm generally a debunker believer. If the last thing I saw was a debunk, probably going to believe it. Even if there's a debunk to the debunk. I'm very biased toward the debunks, but I'm also aware of it. Right. So at least I have a little bit of caution about myself because I know I'm biased toward the debunks. Same way, if somebody's accused of a crime, don't you think they're usually guilty? Right? Not always. Plenty of innocent people get accused of things, but as soon as you hear somebody's accused of a crime and let's say they got indicted, you kind of think they're guilty most of the time. So let's talk some more about rogue doctors. There was a fascinating hypothesis by Julian Sanchez. I saw this on Twitter, and his basic idea is that the reason that rogue doctors are so accepted by the public is because of movies. Because if you watch a movie in which there's a rogue anything, rogue doctor, rogue lawyer, rogue whistleblower, who is always right by the end of the movie. Have you ever seen a movie where there was a rogue doctor and then at the end of the movie, oh, we just found out the rogue doctor was wrong about everything. Turns out the consensus was right all along. Well, that's not a movie. You can't make a movie out of the rogue doctor being wrong. That doesn't work. So I've told you before that we're so tuned to movies that our reality starts matching a three act movie. I've been saying this for how long? Since the beginning of the Trump era. I've been telling you that we're seeing things as three acts. Maybe not by accident. Some of it could be perceptual. But I think we're so primed that things have to have three acts that we will force a third act into an otherwise normal situation. Like we'll just make that third act happen. The impossible problem that the hero has to solve. And so Julian Sanchez's idea is that since all movies make the rogue doctor the one that's right, and that human beings are essentially programmed by movies and narrative, that the narrative of the rogue being right is so strong in our fiction and really even in Our reality shows, because those are the ones that get picked to make a real movie out of them. That's all we can see. If you can't see past the movie filter, you'll be locked in the movie filter. And I would say that there are a whole bunch of people, from the claims of Q to the claims of the rogue doctors who never got out of the movie frame, meaning they never really engaged with science or so called science, or what we think is science or any of that. They just saw the movie form and just embraced it. Now, there's some thought that the QAnon people, based on interviews, were aware that it wasn't real. Do you think that's true? That the. There's some number, not all of them, of course, but there's some number of. The QAnon people were completely aware that it was all fiction, but it didn't matter because they embraced it like they embrace a movie. You watch a movie and it's sad and it makes you cry, but it wasn't real. You watch a movie and it makes you laugh or makes you inspired, but it probably wasn't based on anything real. So we know the things that are not real and that we know are not real affect us like they're real. Would it surprise you that some people would take QAnon as just entertainment and simply act as if it's real and keep that act up because that's part of the fun. I know I'm not going to say that that's most of the Q supporters, but I feel like it would describe some. Some. Maybe just a hypothesis. All right, I'm trying to figure out what's going on with monoclonal antibodies Regeneron and remdesivir. Correct me if I'm wrong, but monoclonal antibodies went from the best thing ever to we're going to remove your emergency authorization, at least for most of them, if not all of them. Right. Now, was that something that was done to disadvantage Florida because they had this good monoclonal antibody thing going on or is it because there was new information showing that it didn't work? Now, when I say didn't work, I mean in the context of. The only agency tasked with protection of whistleblowers is osha. See the issue here? Yes, I do. I didn't know that. Interesting. Anyway, so what I was going to say is there are two versions of this story. On one version, the government found out that monoclonal antibodies don't work against Omicron. Has anybody heard that? Has anybody heard that monoclonal antibodies don't work against Omicron. Do you believe that? Do you believe that the one thing. Let's say the monoclonal antibodies. Do you believe that the one thing that doesn't work against Omicron and the other variants is the only thing that doesn't work on all the variants? Because the vaccines do, the therapeutics do. Basically everything does. Right. But this is the only thing, just the only drug that's useless is against Omicron. But it was really great against the other variants. Really? Really? Now, I know that that could technically be true. In other words, on a scientific basis, that is totally possible, that it could be effective on one variant and not another. We'd all agree with that. Right? But what are the odds that the only one, the only one that doesn't work on Omicron is the one that Desantis was using in Florida to great effect? Really? Now, that could be true, which is the sign of a good hoax. Could be true. But that is really, really stretching my skepticism. I saw Mike Cernovich tweet suggesting the same suspicion that there's probably a political filter on this, that you don't want Florida to look like they did everything right, because Desantis is probably a threat to win the presidency. And it's kind of sickening at the same time. Ramdesevir, which. Can you do a fact check on me? I thought that early on we knew that Remdesivir doesn't work and that it causes more problems than it fixes. And now it's being approved for outpatient. Even when we thought it worked, we only thought it worked for inpatient, meaning that you had to be pretty, pretty bad shape and actually hospitalized before you could even see the signal of it working. And then I think they decided it was more downside than upside. But now suddenly, that thing that was more downside than upside for the other variants is just the thing you need for Omicron and the thing that Fauci is most associated with in terms of his dealings and, let's say, connections and maybe even past monetary flow. Is that a coincidence that at this point in the pandemic, miraculously, monoclonal antibodies stopped working at exactly the same time? The most damned medication in all of the pandemic, meaning people said the most bad things about it, Remdesivir, about it not working and hurting you more than it helps. And then suddenly that's good again. Not only is it good, but it's so good you can use it in an outpatient setting, whereas before you couldn't really. I don't believe any of this. Any of it. It's beginning to look like the government just stopped trying to even pretend to be on our side. Am I wrong? This doesn't even look slightly medical. I mean, usually even when the government is doing things that look sketchy, you say to yourself, well, I don't know. I'm a little skeptical, but at least I see the reasons. The reasons are laid out. So maybe I don't agree with them, but at least there were reasons. But I feel like they just abandoned anything except giving money to whatever pharmaceutical companies bribing them best. That's what it looks like. I saw this data, and I wonder if it's true. There's a new study. I saw this in a tweet by Anna Cutsteel. The Amicron is clearly a game changer. In a large new study by researchers from Berkeley and kaiser Permanente, just one in 52,000 omicron patients died. One out of 52,000. Now, what this study did was, I think it did a better job of getting a random sample. So instead of just looking at people who were hospitalized, I think they looked at the whole public and said that 1 in 52,000 died, compared to 14 people out of 17,000 for Delta. Now, if I told you that 14 out of 17,000 had died of something, how worried would you be? 14 out of 17,000 people died, how worried would you be? Really? You would be zero worried. So if you went to a stadium game, let's say the super bowl, and you knew that, let's say, super bowl would be probably three times that. If you knew that 12 people were going to die in the stadium while you watched the super bowl, you'd still go, would you? Let's say you thought there could be 50,000 people at the super bowl, but you knew in advance 12 of them were going to die. And forget about the stampedes and the crowd control, forget about that. You just knew that in that stadium, 12 of you were going to die before the end of the game. Do you go to that game in person? I see a lot of yeses. Yeah. I don't know. I mean, it could be that going to that game is safer than driving your car. Could be. But I've got a feeling that if 12 people died in a stadium, we'd never have stadium sports again. It'd be like the last time anybody went to a stadium. Now, you know, we're all irrational with big numbers. You know, humans are not good at Handling percentages when they turn into these big numbers. But I would say that one out of 52,000 would give me exactly zero concern. But if a dozen people died in a stadium sized event, I would be concerned about that. Somebody says bad analogy. Why is it a bad analogy? All I'm doing is taking numbers and deaths so you could take the analogy out of it. But I did. The reason I wanted to put you in the scene, imagine you're going to the super bowl, is I wanted you actually to imagine it like it's real, like you actually had to make the decision. All right, well, those are the numbers. I provocatively tweeted this today. Why, why can't we have vitamin D passports? So we have passports if you have a certain number of vaccinations. And there's talk about, of course, adding natural immunity if you've been infected before, if you could prove it, I guess, and we'd like to see that part of the protocol. But given that we know that high vitamin D makes you virtually invulnerable, statistically speaking, if I had a vitamin D test that showed I was in that high vitamin D category, and let's say I'm under a certain age, how about this? Why can't I get effectively a vaccine passport with no vaccination as long as I had high vitamin D and I could prove it, I was a certain age, I'm not 80 years old or something, I could prove I'm below a certain age. My BMI is acceptable again, I could prove that. I could have a test of my bmi, other comorbidities, I suppose I could prove that with a medical record. And then in the age of Omicron, when we're all going to get it anyway and probably won't die, shouldn't that be enough? I could prove every one of these. I could definitely measure my vitamin D, my age, my BMI and my medical records would show if I had other comorbidities. Are you telling me that in the age of Omicron, just specifically the age of Omicron, when that's really all you're going to get at this point is Omicron? In the age of Omicron, you tell me that I'm not as safe as your fucking vaccinations. If I've got high vitamin D, I'm below, let's say, 65, perfect BMI, no other comorbidities that are important? Really? You think that I have a lower chance of dying with all of this going for me than you do with Your fat fucking ass and 16 vaccinations. I say it's not even close. Am I wrong? If you weigh 400 pounds and you're vaccinated 17 times, do you think you have a better chance of survival than I do with my vitamin D at astronomic? Well, I don't know. I think they're pretty sufficient, young enough, low bmi, perfectly healthy. I don't think it's even close. So we're, we're definitely not following the science. I mean, it might be impractical for somebody to measure all of these things, but if you did measure them, I'm pretty sure my mortality risk would be way lower than some vaccinated people. You know what I mean? You know what I mean? All right, here's an account that you should follow if you don't remember what I tell you. Now, just look in my Twitter feed because I just tweeted before I got on here that you should follow this account. It is Jason the Germ Guy Tetro. And he goes by J A Tetro. T E E. I'm sorry, T E T R O. And every now and then, you watch, you watch. I'll call them whales every once in a while. Every now and then, a whale will enter a conversation on Twitter and just change everything. So Jason the Germ guy Tetro is a whale, meaning that his background on this topic is the right kind of background. And he really, really knows his shit, and he really, really knows the research, and he really, really can tell the difference between good and bad. So watching this whale come into the thread and just. I can use another analogy, it looked like raking leaves. You know, sometimes you see that the fight, and it looks like two pit bulls kind of fair fight because they both have an argument, but, you know, they seem about the same to you. Well, Jason comes into the thread, I swear to God, it looked like he was just raking leaves. Hey, what's your argument? Oh, here we go. Okay, what else? Anybody else have. A follow up? And each time he did it, he did it with, I think almost every time with a link to some data that looked both new and reasonable. So here. But here are some things he said, I think he indicated, and I may have read it wrong, that if you were over 65 and you got at least the earlier versions, you know, the delta whatever, that your odds of hospitalization were as high as 9%. Does that sound right? He's a rogue scientist now. He's actually not a rogue scientist because I think most of his takes are pretty Close to the mainstream, but he defends them better. I don't think it's that high. Is it 9% of people over 65 getting hospitalized with Delta? That doesn't seem right. So I'm just gonna say I may have read that wrong. So don't blame, don't blame Jason for that data because I think I was interpreting it wrong. I think that's on me. Adam Townsend made this observation now a year ago, but it's twice as true today. Do you remember that? The videos of Wuhan where people were collapsing in the street from the virus. And do you remember you thought to yourself. Because I remember I did. I don't know if that's real or not, but it sure looks real or it looks real enough that I'm going to be scared about it. Go back and look at it today, you've got a surprise coming. You look at it today, it's obviously fake. It's obviously fake. You should see the guy falling. The guy standing straight up and then he starts to fall like he's a tree. And then just before he hits the ground, he puts his arms out. Who does that if you're falling like a tree? By the way, I've seen people fall like a tree. I was at a event for single people a million years ago in San Francisco and there was a Dilbert looking guy who was just standing by the outdoor bar, just slamming drinks because he was too nervous to talk to anybody. And I was, I stood there and watched him actually stand straight up and fall straight on his face on concrete without breaking his fall. Paramedics had to come. I don't know if he lived or died, but that's what it looks like when you're unconscious. He was unconscious before he hit the ground and the ground didn't help his consciousness any. Now you don't fall like you're not even going to use your arms. And then you wake up just before the ground, oh, it looks like I'm two feet from the ground. I better do this. We have become so much better educated about the fakeness of everything. We see that. If you look at that 29, was it 2020 video? If you look at that early 2020 video with the eyes of 2022, you will laugh at how obviously fake it is. You will laugh. And I swear I couldn't see it as clearly when it happened. You're coming out of hypnotic. Yeah, well, it was always sketchy, but it never looked so fake until our brains were more attuned to it. Today Rasmussen had Some interesting polls said, do laws requiring photo IDs of polls discriminate against some voters? What do you think people said to that? What percentage of people thought that voter IDs to vote discriminates? Just take a guess. Hey, that was a really good guess. The people on Locals. Wow, you guys are good guessers. Everybody on Locals got the right answer. That's amazing. It's actually 26%, but you rounded it 25%. Yeah, 25%. 25%. 25% seems like exactly the number of idiots who answer every poll. That's right. 25% of the idiots said, yeah, you don't want photo ID that would discriminate against people who don't know how to get photo id, I guess, or something. But two thirds were smart. Another question Rasmussen asked was, do you agree with this that Congress should pass a truly bipartisan election reform bill to help restore confidence in the elections? How many people thought that it would be a bad idea, a bad idea to have true bipartisan election reform? Just approximately. God, you guys are good. You guys are good. Wow, it's like a psychic convention here. Yeah, yeah. Turns out it was. You won't believe this, but 24% thought that bipartisan effort to fix our elections bad idea. 25%. Well, here's an update on California masks. My updated understanding is that the mask mandates that are in effect in California were actually supposed to time out January 15th. So in theory, if we don't do anything, two and a half weeks more and the masks will go away. I don't know if that's true and I think we need to speed that up. So I'd like to see that still be February 1st. And there is some, maybe some motion. Apparently the State Supreme Court in New York, New York State decided that mask mandates were unconstitutional. That's right. A court has now ruled in New York State that mask mandates are unconstitutional. Do you think anybody in California saw that? Do you think anybody in California is going to say, wait, that worked. And they're already running to the court with some kind of a petition or case or something. So that's happening. Now, obviously we would expect a higher court, even though it's the state Supreme Court, but apparently that's not the actual Supreme Court. There are courts above it that can kill this rule or put a stay on it, which might happen, but it does show that there is certainly anti mask movement. You know what else shows some anti mask movement? I told this story on the Locals platform yesterday where I can give them a little bit more detail than I can say in public. Public. So I'll give you, I'll give you on YouTube the more general statement. Let's just say that yesterday I was in a place that required masks. I'm not going to give you any detail because I don't want to get anybody in trouble. Let's just say that in one large room, of which There were roughly 15 people, including me, as soon as the first two attractive women removed their masks, everybody removed their masks. Everybody. All it took was two attractive women to go first because they never get in trouble. You all know that, right? I'm not telling you this for the first time. Attractive women have no repercussions if they do something that's socially unacceptable. Right now, if somebody like me does it, maybe an employee comes up and says, put it on. It wasn't Christine in this case, but it would have worked with her. And I've been watching this phenomenon, the pretty privilege. And I just haven't seen an attractive woman be asked to put on a mask once past the door. I guess the Walmart in Quebec has decided that you can't shop there unless you have all your vaccines. And this could be a big problem because if the Canadians start illegally immigrating into America to get away from this Walmart policy and maybe shop at our much more free Walmarts, I think that Biden's going to have to send Kamala Harris there to see if they can deal with a root problem. Yeah, Kamala Harris needs to go to Canada and maybe stop this potential stem of illegal immigrants across the northern border. And maybe that. Maybe that'll help. Let me, let me test an idea with you. See if this seems mostly true. Nothing's 100% true, but see if this generalization sounds mostly true to you. Number one, two years ago, if somebody said follow the science, what did you think of that? Maybe you thought that was common sense. Maybe you thought that was a very rational thing to do and probably, yeah, totally reasonable. In fact, the person who said follow the science was generally judged to be the superior thinker in the conversation. Right. Two years later, when you hear follow the science, are you more likely to think it's serious or sarcasm? Go. Today, if you hear it, is your first instinct it's serious or that it might be sarcasm or brainwashing? Yeah. The entire idea of follow the science has been debunked. I don't mean that you shouldn't follow the science. I'm saying that the public's opinion of this has completely changed. And the pandemic did this. The pandemic made us see following the science as absurd. Because here's what's happened. A lot of people followed the science, and where did they end up? So once they followed it, where'd they go? They went to their team. Some followed it to the Democrat side, some followed science to the Republican side. Which ones were not following science? Nobody. Nobody. We were all following the science as we saw it. Now, sometimes that meant, you know, disbelieving science that seemed obviously not credible, maybe because it came through people who had money or bad intentions. That's fair. That's part of following the science, part of following the salty methods. Scott got duped. Can you give me a fucking example of what I got duped on? Anything. Never mind. You're gonna get blocked. The. The people hallucinating that I got fooled by something. Go read my profile link. You'll see my opinions, what they were and what they. What they used to be, and see if you can find something that I got duped by. See if you could do that, and then get back to me. But if you can't find anything that I was duped by, next time, you hear, shut the fuck up. All right. Does the Ukraine situation look to you like. Like our. I don't know, or deep state or somebody, the industrial, Military, industrial complex. Does it look to you like somebody's ginning up a fake war for. For, I don't know, I guess, monetary use? The Ukraine situation just looks like a fake war to me. I. I don't see anything else there. Like, I can't even see it as legitimate a little bit. You know, during the weapons of mass destruction phase in Iraq, I was. I was open to the possibility they had weapons of mass destruction. It seemed reasonable, you know, at least you figured they'd at least have, you know, illegal chemicals or something. I was actually quite surprised that they didn't, but it's 2022 now. We're a lot smarter about this stuff. Now, at this point, I don't have any belief that the entire Ukraine thing is even legitimate, like, that we're even talking about a war now. I'd like to believe that we're just talking about it because that's part of the process of preventing it. That would be the most positive spin you could put on it. But it doesn't look like. Looks exactly like we're being somebody who's trying to prime us for war that we don't need, that nobody needs, because somebody's got a profit motive. It looks like now it could be not a profit motive. It could be, you know, Chinese shenanigans or something. I suppose that's possible. Do you remember Pre Covid? I think there's going to be a thing called pre Covid thinking, meaning that before COVID 19, you could at least imagine that the government wasn't lying to you in some situations. Right. Pre Covid, you were at least open to the possibility that this time they weren't lying. Sure, there are other times they lied and we know it. But you were still open to the possibility. Okay, well, this could be true. I mean, I'm going to still be skeptical. I'm going to make them prove their case. But, you know, that could be true. What's your assumption now isn't your first assumption it's not true? Now, I don't agree with the people who made the assumption that all of the pharmaceutical products are bad because we can't trust anybody. Because that doesn't really track with my sense of reality. It's certainly possible that three quarters of them are bad. If you said, would you bet against that? I'd say, no. No, I wouldn't bet against three quarters of them being fraudulent. But it's kind of a stretch to imagine that all of them are fraudulent. Maybe, but I'm still not there. That would be a big, big stretch. All right. Biggest story of the day, which will be immediately ignored by the mainstream media is there's a new book coming out by Peter Schweisser. I guess it comes out right around now. And the book claims that the Biden family earned 31 million from five deals involving people with direct ties to Chinese intelligence. And this is being called Chinese elite capture. In other words, finding ways to bribe or influence the elites. And I guess they thought that Biden was connected enough to the elites that controlling him would be good for China. So this book alleges, and I haven't read it yet, but this is the. The news that the Chinese Communists saw like a big, big opportunity here. And the hunter Biden got meetings and major deals with people associated with the Chinese government and that it clearly was just China buying off the elites. Now, I don't know how much of this could be proven, so I haven't seen the book. So you're going to have to wait for the. I would say keep an open mind and wait for any debunking of this book, but I'll bet you won't see any. I've got a feeling it won't be debunked. It will just be de Emphasized it would just be disappeared. It will be another thing that only the people on the right are ever aware of. That won't change anything because the people on the right already thought that Biden was corrupt. So this would just add a number to it. But it doesn't change it. The people on the left will just never see it. They'll just never see it. Now what happens when Peter Doocy asks Joe Biden the question about it? Oh, there's a new book out that says, blah, blah, blah. What is Biden going to do? He's going to get that stupid smile of his and call him a stupid son of a bitch. All right, let's get rid of this asshole. One more asshole bites the dust. Anybody else? All right, goodbye, John. Frank. Well, to me it looks like China owns the Bidens. That's what I'd say. What do you say? I think China owns the Bidens. Debunking implies some credibility. Well, that. That sounds like pre Covid thinking. In the old days, debunking did imply credibility, even if it wasn't there today. I think fact checking doesn't have any credibility. Maybe it shouldn't. So here's where everybody's trying to dunk on me. If you said the government is lying and you were right, that wasn't a surprise to me. If you thought it was, then I don't know. That's mind reading. Or maybe you haven't sampled enough of my materials or something. But I'm literally the most distrusting person of authority in the planet. I've spent 30 years talking about almost nothing but that. Not trusting authority. So I'm sorry, on locals, one of the users, to say that they are actually the most skeptical person. Well, I'm the second most skeptical person in the world after. After this person, Michael Malice might be more distrusting. Well, we might be a tie. We might be a tie. Have I read Atlas Shrugged? Yes. Did I like it? No. I thought it was poorly written and had no impact on my political thinking whatsoever. I really don't understand how anybody is influenced by Atlas Shrugged. It's not a good book and I didn't get anything political out of it. Anything. I mean, I don't know how that could influence anybody. The idea of it, I don't know. It was just an author with a bunch of opinions. That didn't do anything for me. Huge book for a guy that doesn't like to read books. Well, that's one of the reasons I don't like to read books. You know, I read that one because everybody was talking about it. Shelly wrecked you. Goodbye, trolls. I heard that a lot of the bots, the trolls and bots are actually scripts. Have you ever heard that there's a script that sends sort of generic comments to people like me? Because I've been wondering why the comments were so generic. Like every. I was just showing somebody yesterday. Every day I get a comment that just says, go fuck yourself. Or some version of it. And I think to myself, was that really based on what my tweet was? Because it looks like they're just randomly coming in with insults about me. And then there are about. I don't know, there may be a dozen things that all the trolls say about me. It's just always from the checklist. The fact that it's so checklisty. Their comments, to me, they all look the same. It looks pretty programmed. Did you think War and Peace sucked too? I would never read War and Peace. Atlas Shrugged is not for stupid people. It's probably true. The sound sucks right now. I should block you for that. All right, well, what do you think is going to happen? Us facing massive shortage of conspiracy theories as all of them have come true. Headline today. All right. Russian authors are tedious. Yeah, probably so. All right, that's all for now, YouTubers. I'm going to say goodbye and I'll talk to you tomorrow.