Episode 2003 Scott Adams: Trump's Energy Messaging Is A Disaster, TikTok Ban Update, Iran Attacks

Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of civilization. Once again, the best thing you've ever done for yourself showing up here. Now, I can't guarantee that this will be the best thing that happened to you today, but there's about an 80% chance. 80% chance. And if you'd like to take it up to 85% chance, all you need is a cup of mugger, a glass of tanker Chelsea stand, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine day of the day thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip Go. Yeah, that's good stuff. Well, over on locals, we're gonna go private, but you can watch us on YouTube all you want. Except for the good stuff after the show. That's only for the subscribers. Well, have I ever told you this way to predict the future? Best way to predict the future is the best story usually wins. Have you ever heard me say that? The best story. So, for example, if there's an aging athlete who comes back for one last chance to win the super bowl that he's never won before, if that's like the best story, it'll probably happen, right? So the Australian Open tennis tournament just concluded. What was the best story? Well, the best story, if you recall. If you don't watch tennis, I'll tell you one of the top players in the world. I don't know if he's number one, but he has been number one off and on. Novak Djokovic. He was not allowed to play in the Australian Open last year because he was unvaccinated. This year he was allowed to play. What was the best story? Oh, did he regain number one by winning the tournament? That's the best story. The best story would be Novak Djokovic winning the Australian Open yesterday. Novak Djokovic won the Australian Open. Now, that's not the weird part. You know what the weird part is? His first name. Novak. Novaks. I mean, it's, you know, Novak, but really his name is Novaks, and he didn't get vaccinated, and he won the Australian Open. You tell me that's not the best story, right? Could you not have predicted that? I did actually predict that in advance, but privately, so I should have said it out loud. But every time you see one of these where the best story is really obvious, you're like, well, that would be the best story. Then it happens. And I think that there's actually A mechanism for could be the simulation is causing our intentions to make it happen. But I feel as if everybody collectively knows the best story, including the competitors. And I think it actually suppresses the competitors. There's a psychological mechanism where they too want the best story to happen. Because the best story is just has a hold on your mind because you're used to seeing the best story in fiction. So that's just a theory. Wall Street Journal is reporting that restaurants are retooling to be more takeout oriented. Some of them will be purely takeout. So you're going to have a purely takeout restaurant. More of them coming. I mean it's not like that was just invented, but there'd be more of them coming. Now here's I always thought was the best part about the pandemic. If you can even say that the best part about the pandemic is. Do you remember Naval Ravikant said early in the pandemic he predicted that what the pandemic would change was mostly the rate of change. That the things that were going to happen in the long run were still going to happen. Just they would happen more quickly because we would be scrambling to re engineer everything. And one of the things I think was badly in need of re engineering is food. Have you ever thought about the inefficiency of the food process? From the moment let's say a seed is planted in a farmer's field, do you know how many people touch your food before it gets to your mouth? It's like all kinds of steps to get it to some distribution place, then it gets to the food distribution place, then it gets to the grocery store, then it gets on the shelf, you put it in your cart, you take it out of the cart, you put it on your, on the, you know, the cashier thing, you pay for it, you put it back in the cart, you take it out of the cart, you put it in your car, you take it out of your car, you put it on your counter, you take it out of your bag and put it in the refrigerator. You take it out of the refrigerator, you take it out of the package, take it out of the package, put it in the oven, take it out of the oven, put it on a plate, take it from the plate, put it in your mouth. The whole thing is a complete mess. Nobody would design this system from scratch. It just sort of evolved that way with a free market. So for a long time I've been telling you that the best food distribution system would look like the following. Something very close to Your home, like you could walk there in five minutes, would be like a central cafeteria, like a college campus. And a central cafeteria would have a wide variety of food that they just made fresh. So everything's fresh, just got made. Lots of variety. And because it's a captive audience a little bit, you know, there's, you know, they had the monopoly, if you will. It was pretty cheap. So it was cheap. Best food you could get, and the easiest food you could get. They solved every problem. Solved every problem. The only thing it didn't solve was we didn't have apps. When I was in college, if I had an app where all I had to do was say what I want to pick up, and I just walk over and pick it up, I wouldn't have to pay for delivery. So the whole door dash. I think doordash might have a limited future because I think people are going to still be doing takeout, but I think they're going to get it within five minutes of their house. So I think you'll have all these local sort of general cafeterias here would be the mistake. I think the mistake would be to have a local takeout only that's one ethnicity. Like, it's just Chinese takeout now. People will use that. But wouldn't you rather everybody in your family can order from the cafeteria and you just go pick it up? You don't want the. Well, I don't like Chinese food. Or I had it yesterday. If you're going to order once for a family, you kind of want the cafeteria. So I think this is where it's going. It's going to be all, use your app, walk five minutes and pick it up. That's what it's going to be with some delivery option. But it's already happening. Looks like. All right, here's some fake news from the Democrats. Fake news. Do you remember when the Democrats were saying that the Georgia voting laws and there have been some recent changes, were going to disenfranchise the black American voters? Do you remember that? Oh, it was practically a second holocaust, slavery all over again. How could they? They were going to make it impossible for black people to figure out how to vote. So there was a recent survey, new poll asked black voters if they had a poor experience cast in their ballot, and the number of black voters who said they had a poor experience voting in Georgia was 0. 0. Have you ever seen a poll where one of the main answers was 0? 0. Now it rounded to 0. So it was a little bit more than 0, but it rounded to 0. Yeah. I often tell you that on any poll, at least 25% of the respondents are going to get the wrong answer. But this one was so clean, so obvious, so clear, so unambiguous that 100% of black Americans who you might imagine, you know, being human like everybody else, you might imagine that they would feel a little bias, because we all do in our own situations. Right. We all have bias. Don't you think that you could get more than zero of them to at least imagine they had a hard time? How do you even not imagine that? Maybe it was harder than usual. I mean, the level of certainty that these patriots exhibited. And I'm going to call them patriots. Why? Why do I call them Patriots? Because there wasn't anybody who was willing to lie for political purposes. They found, apparently a large body of black voters, of which basically none of them were willing to lie for political gain. Have you ever seen better news than that? Yeah. Now somebody says that makes you suspicious of the poll, doesn't it? Yeah, that does make you a little suspicious of the poll. All right, I'm going to completely change my take on this. You've completely changed my mind. There's no way that's true. There's no way that's credible. All right, you win. You win. You got me. My first reaction was it was amazing. Second reaction, you have changed my mind. I'm looking at your comments. You've totally changed my mind. There isn't any way that's true. There isn't any way that's true. Right here. I was all inspired that we'd found a pocket of the best patriotic Americans who just weren't willing to lie for political gain. But there's no group of Americans like that. All right, well, I guess it's double fake news. It's probably double fake news that it really wasn't that hard to vote. But there's no way this survey is real. I can't believe it. All right, enough of that. So Wall Street Journal has some good reporting here on what's stopping the TikTok ban from happening. As you know, TikTok is evil and can control America because it's the user interface that China can use to change our opinions in America. Literally. That's not. Not any kind of exaggeration. And so as you know, the Hawley Hawley has a. Some legislation that's pending. But here's a problem that I'd never heard of until today. And how. How in the world did I never hear this until today? Can you tell me if you heard this news before today that the reason that Trump tried and failed to get TikTok banned was there's something called the Berman Amendment that goes back to the Cold War. And the Berman Amendment says that you don't want to censor international information. And the reason was, I think we didn't want our information to be censored by other people, but also we didn't want to be the censors of other countries. So it was the Berman Amendment. Now, apparently the Trump administration was not able to figure out a way around it. And so TikTok argued it and won and won in court. They said it's not legal because the Berman Amendment says you can't do this. So the Trump administration backed off. Do you know how hard this was to solve? Here's what the Hawley Amendment did to get past that oh, so terrible problem, totally unsolvable problem, right? What are you going to do? What are you going to do with this unsolvable problem of the Berman Amendment? Well, let me tell you how clever Hawley is. Josh Hawley. Now, you never would have figured this out because we're, you know, just normal people. But Josh Hawley, apparently a genius, figured out how to get around the Berman Act. His legislation says this will be a narrow exception to the Berman Act. Well, who would have ever thought of that? Who would have ever thought, well, why don't we just include in the legislation that this is an exception? How about that? Now, apparently, nobody. I want to ask you for an exception to do some swearing, because this really calls for it, but I'm not going to do it. Not going to do it. I'm not going to swear. I will simply state in the calmest possible way that the Trump administration must have been deeply incompetent on this issue, because it looks like the solution is as simple as saying, well, how about we make an exception to the Berman Act? And here's why. That was not really hard to figure out. So I can't give Trump a pass on that, can I? How in the world could I give him a pass on that? Now, maybe, maybe the Josh Hawley legislation won't pass, and then maybe the argument is, well, it's not going to pass if you put that in there. But why wouldn't it? The argument for not making that exception is that other countries might try to censor our information. Stop laughing. Come on, Let me say it again so you can have a good laugh. The argument for not censoring information coming into our country from China, From China is that other countries might Try to, you know, use as an excuse to ban some of our information. Yeah, that's actually what they're arguing about in the real world. Actual adults are having that conversation. Let me tell you the conversation that's not happening in China. Oh, we better not do anything with TikTok because we don't want to violate that Berman Act. I mean, it's not our, it's not our act or amendment. It's not our amendment. But, you know, we don't want to start something. The last thing we'd want to do in China is ban some American information because then they might ban our information. I mean, really, are we seeing, are we missing something about the story or are politicians actually this incapable? The level of incompetence that this exhibits is almost hard to believe. Like you could have a really low opinion of Congress and still look at this and say, okay, that's a new, that's a new level of incompetence. I haven't seen that before. You know, you've done it again. You've outdone yourself. Yeah, we don't want China and Russia and North Korea. Yeah, we wouldn't want them filtering the information we send to their residents. God forbid that that should start tomorrow. All right, so that's happening or not happening. But the good news is we'll all get to see who is voting for China and who's voting for the United States. And Josh Hawley, here's another bit of fodder for you. The Berman act, unless I'm mistaken, is about information from other countries. Information. TikTok is information. All you have to do is call it entertainment, you're done. Just say the Berman act talks about information, but this is specifically about entertainment. So we would never block information, but we might block entertainment that also has some information in it. So it's just words, nothing you can't change. There's a company, I saw an ad for, a company called Pay Analytics. So they've got a new product. I want you to see if you can find, oh, I don't know, any potential problems with this product. See if, see if your suspicious mind comes up with anything that would be maybe bad about this product taking off in corporate America. Here's what they do. They measure and monitor pay gaps by any demographic variable, pay equity decisions made easy for HR and compensation, as well as consultants. As well as consultants so you can sustain fair pay and gain ongoing data driven support. You could book a demo today. That's right. You could take a company away from its mission of making Money and serving its stockholders. And you could make them spend all of their time trying to be fair across all demographic variables. All of them? All of the demographics. Because if you find out that short people are paid less, you're going to have to fix it. So in theory, I'd like to know if they put in height and weight and attractiveness. Because you know those are correlated, right? You know that better looking people are higher paid. Is that fair? How about short people? They're paid less than tall people. I think that pay analytics needs to do more analytics. I don't know if they've done enough. Because if they only stopped with, let's say, gender preference and ethnicity and religion. If they stopped with that, I say you've only gone half the way. There are so many other demographics that must be accounted for. So let's get that going. All right. One of the biggest questions I've been asked lately is am I serious about my apologizing for being wrong about everything in the pandemic? Or as some people have suggested, am I just being sarcastic and just being a jerk? All right, what do you think? Sarcastic or serious? Go in the comments. What do you say? Oh, damn you. Damn you for getting the right answers over there on locals. The locals people are all over me. They're always there. Both. How could I be serious and not serious at the same time? Is that possible? But how could. How could I believe that I was wrong about everything if I really believe that I'm right about everything? They can't both be true, right? It can't be true that I'm right about everything and wrong about everything. Would you agree? Well, let me change the question. How many would agree with a statement? It can't be simultaneously true. Agree or not, it can't be true that I was wrong about almost everything, but also right about everything that can't both be true. Right? We all agree on that. All right. That's where we differ. In my world, they both can be true forever, and there's no preferred truth. They're both true, completely true, unambiguously true, and forever. And it's not just a mental thing. In my best understanding of my reality, we are actually a simulation. And it's only because of the math of it. I won't go through the argument again, but it's like a trillion to one that we're simulated and not originally. If we're simulated, it seems clear that in order to save processing power, our simulation allows us to live in our own movie. I call it a movie because we're looking at the same objective facts often, not always, but often. And yet we form our own movie and then we live in it. The only thing the simulation requires is that we can still reproduce. That's it. If you reproduce, you make more of yourself, so there's more of you to do the same stuff next year. But if you don't reproduce, you know, it's game over. So the only thing that matters is if we can reproduce. And as far as I know, the people who believe that vaccinations were the worst experience we've ever had and those who think it was no big deal can still have babies, you know, unless they've been sterilized by accidental science. But as far as we know, they can both have, we can still have babies with each other. So what I'm doing, my, my own, let's say, cognition of what I'm doing is that I'm not, I'm not dishonest. When I, when I say to the locals, people, well, obviously I got everything right. You watched every bit of it. And they say, yeah, that, that meets my view of the world. Some don't. Some would say the opposite. And then for those who say the opposite, I say, well, that's true too. In a minute, a little bit. I've got to do some other stories. At the end, I'm going to tell you something about viruses that you didn't know and it's important. Do you think I can do that even at this stage? Do you think there's something I could tell you about viruses that you didn't know that's really important? All right, well, let's see if I can pull that off, but I'll do that at the end. So those of you want to avoid that conversation. All right, let's talk about Ukraine. Did you hear the story that apparently reportedly Israel did some bombing runs or maybe some drones or missiles, I don't know, but they attacked a bunch of drone making factories in Iran. Now what do you make of that? That Israel just did a massive attack on Iran and took out some number of drone making factories. I am so impressed with Israel's decision making, their strategic excellence. It's just crazy how good they are. Do you know how long they've wanted to take out Iranian drone factories? I mean, I'm just guessing, but don't you think they've wanted to take down the Iranian drone factories since the moment they knew they existed? Right, because these drones are going to end up with Hamas and the drones are going to end up in Israel already have. Right. So. And do you think they could have done it on day one? Well, on day one, it would have looked like they were starting, you know, a traditional war. It would have been pretty aggressive, but. And what would have happened to Europe's reaction? I think Europe would have said to Israel, what the hell are you doing? These Iranians are negotiating with us in good faith to get some kind of a nuclear deal, and then you're just attacking them. Well, that's no fair. Stop that. Am I right? Two years ago, correct me if I'm wrong, two years ago, Europe would have said israel. You know, we're going to have to give you some tough time about that. Right. Do you think Europe is going to give Israel a tough time about taking out the source of Putin's drones? Nope. Nope. This was. This was free money. This was so free money. Israel just had a total free punch and they took it. My God. Are you impressed? You know, when you watch the Ukrainians and the NATO in the US you have lots of, you know, maybe this was good, maybe bad. It's easy to criticize both sides, but what is there to criticize about this? Exactly. Lexington, Lyn, never let a crisis go to waste. I actually. I almost tweeted that and deleted it. I had it half written, and I decided not to say it. But, yes, Israel said they're in the middle of a big crisis. We can just take out these factories, and everybody's just going to say, okay. And I think that's what's happening. I think it was just a free punch, and they took it. Iran said no damage. Yeah, I saw the videos of the no damage. It was a pretty big fireball for no damage. But on the other hand, they could come back and get them on YouTube. Somebody's comparing me to Bill Kristol. Yeah, yeah, that's a. That's a good comparison. Bill, Crystal and me, we're like that. Same opinions on everything. See? Simulation. They can have their own. You can have your own reality about that. All right, so I don't know if you heard this story or how old it is. Somebody can tell me how old this story is. How old is the story about Conor McGregor being hit by a car while he was riding his bicycle? He's okay. He wasn't injured. How old is that story? Was that just this week? I only saw the video this week, but I had a feeling two weeks ago. Oh, it's fairly new. So here's what happened. Conor McGregor, if you don't know one of the top or at least the most famous MMA fighters. So the last guy you would ever want to get in a fight with would be Conor McGregor. Am I right? Like, you would never want to make this guy angry. Well, here's what happened. He was out riding his bike, presumably working out, and there was some kind of blind spot because of the sun. And the car came around the corner and just took about it, just. Just took out the bike and destroyed it. Now, here's the best part of the story. How many of you could have survived being hit by a car at full speed on a bicycle? How many of you could survive that? So Bacader apparently saw the, you know, saw the impending thing before he was. He could, you know, he had time to act. And I think he jumped off the bike, probably did some acrobatic rolls across the car and landed properly. Now, not at his feet, but he said he knew how to land. That man could take a hit. Oh, my God. Was that the most interesting story? But it gets better. It gets better. The guy who hit him, of course, didn't know who he hit. How would you like to be the guy who just realized you just took out somebody, you don't know who it is, and you're like, oh, my God. My God. The first thing you find out is that. The first thing you find out is that he's perfectly okay. So your first impression is, oh, thank goodness he's perfectly healthy. The second thing you find out is it's Conor McGregor. Do you think he was worried? So it gets better because Conor takes out his phone. So you're seeing some of the aftermath, including his conversation with the guy who hit him. Just perfect. Just perfect. The guy who hit him looked so frightened. I've never seen anybody look more frightened. He was just like this. And then he offers him a ride, offers Conor McGregor a ride. He says, I could put your bike in the back and give you a ride. And Connor's like, yeah, I need a ride. Yeah, that'd be great. So then Conor McGregor is doing a selfie, you know, the video selfie in the car. And he's describing what happens. And then he turns the camera to show the guy who's driving him. He goes, ah, the other, you know, luckily he landed well and, you know, he's giving me a ride. He shows the guy. The guy's like. Because I have to think he probably all the time thought he was like five seconds from being killed. But what he doesn't understand is if you're Conor McGregor and somebody takes out your bicycle on a highway and you acrobatically survive. That was a good day. That wasn't a bad day. That was a good day. He got a great story out of it. I think he scratched his ass or something. That was the worst of it. Got a great story out of it. Did exactly what you would want to hope two people would do in that situation. Right. The guy who made, who hit him didn't seem like it was his fault because there was a blind spot there. And even Connor said that. So the two of them completely reached a non angry resolution in which they were helping each other. It was just the coolest story. Just the coolest story. Yeah. Anyway, I liked it. I saw Jesse Waters talking about Hunter and I don't know, is there something new on this story or was he just recapping it? Because this is in the news today. Not sure why it was new, but the FBI has recordings of Hunter talking to the. What Hunter called the effing spy chief of China. And there was this one guy who they thought was a spy called Patrick Ho. And this Patrick Ho was part of the money making scheme in which Hunter and presumably Joe Biden made money from China going through this Patrick Ho. And I read the whole story and the only commentary I have on it is, you know, Joe Biden said that Hunter Biden was the smartest person he knew. And you doubted that, right? You doubted it. But he's the only person I've ever heard of who ever made money from a hoe. That's all I have to say. He might be the smartest person I know too. I don't know anybody who ever made money on a hoe unless they were a pimp, but he wasn't a pimp. So smartest person I know. But it makes you wonder, if we have these recordings and we know every part of the story, how is it Joe Biden still the president? It's, it's so weird that he's still the president. And I wonder, I wonder if we're or most of us are living in the same kind of cognitive dissonance that the TDS people were. The Trump derangement syndrome. Because the thing that surprises the Trump haters the most is that Trump is not in jail right now. The reason Trump is not in jail is the total lack of committing crimes that are jailable. Maybe has something to do with not committing any jailable offenses, but they can't see that. To them he was a traitor, ran an insurrection, did all kinds of things. Are we doing the same thing with Biden or is that how they get away with it? They make you think, well, maybe you're not right. Because we're acting like it's not right. We're treating it like it doesn't exist. So maybe you're not right. Maybe you've got a little derangement syndrome there, Scott. I don't even know if I'm being dead honest. I don't know. Because that's the nature of confirmation bias, right? The nature of cognitive dissonance is the person who has it doesn't know. So what if I have it? What if the Bidens didn't do anything shady and it just looks exactly like that in every way to me? And people who saw the same stuff I saw? Is that possible? Because trust me, there's nobody who has Trump derangement syndrome who thinks they have Trump derangement syndrome. They all think they're just looking at the facts and reaching a decision. Well, that's what I think I'm doing. Well, why am I right and they're wrong? Remember my rule about knowing who's got cognitive dissonance? You look for someone who has the trigger, and they exhibit the tells. I'm not sure I see any, but then maybe I wouldn't. Yeah, the word salad. Have I exhibited any word salad about Biden? Well, you wouldn't know, because if you're on the. If you're on the same page, it would look like it made sense to you anyway. We'll keep an eye on that because it looks like nobody cares. So Trump went after Desantis a little bit for closing Florida when apparently other governors did not. That was a pretty good. That's a pretty good offense. So obviously, Trump is trying to degrade Desantis presidential possibilities. But that's an interesting attack, isn't it? Because Trump never supported lockdowns, apparently. So he can look the governors that didn't lock down, and he can compare him to DeSantis, and suddenly DeSantis doesn't look so good because he's reframed him. He's reframed it from comparing DeSantis to DeSantis to comparing him to governors who didn't close down. That's a pretty good political approach, just from a persuasion perspective. Pretty good. It's pretty good because he understands his base doesn't like the lockdowns. He never supported them OR mandates. And DeSantis did for a little while. Not for long. So we still give Desantis credit for being one of the more right people. But then Trump also, apparently there's a story that Nikki Haley called Trump and said she's considering running in the primaries against him. What do you think Trump said when Nikki Haley said she's considering running against him? What would be his smartest response? Go for it. Because the more people in the primaries, the more likely he wins because he's going to keep his 25%. So if the other people can split what's left over, he's the nominee again. Worked the first time. Why wouldn't it work again? Yeah, so that was exactly the right answer. So he is definitely right on his attack for DeSantis in terms of persuasion wise. It's a good approach and he is definitely right strategically telling Nikki Haley, yeah, go for it. Good strategy. But then I saw a video in which he was talking about the energy policy, the Biden energy policy, and it sounded like he was saying that there's like these stupid energy things and good energy things. And the good energy things were the fossil fuel types and the bad energy things that were silly. I don't think he named them by name, but it sounded like he was going after solar and wind power. Right. That was the implication. Now, what do you think of his messaging? His messaging is fossil fuel is good. Alternative things can never be good. You know, they're not good and will never be good. Is that good messaging or bad? It's an F. Yeah, that's a fail. If I'm going to grade this, it's not even a D plus. This is just a total failure. Here's what a good message for a Republican candidate would look like. You know, there's something we can all come together on energy. It used to be there was a lot of disagreement on nuclear energy, but with the generation three, which has never had any deaths or problems or big problems, and with the fact that we now can store the spent fuel on site so we don't have to transport it, that's sort of where the industry went. And now that the newer generations of nuclear could eat some of that waste as their fuel, could use some of the waste as their fuel, we should definitely come together on nuclear and do it as quickly as possible. Now, I think we should also go heavy on fossil fuel unless and until we have alternatives. But I don't see them coming happening quickly. However, I also agree that the free market should continue every other technological innovation because there might be something, some change. You know, you might have better batteries or better solar panels or better windmills. So that'd be great. At the moment, we think we need as much fossil Fuel as possible to give America its independence. Economic. Economic growth, as well as being secure from our enemies in the long run. We like technological innovation, but we don't want to over subsidize it. That's a problem. We don't want to over subsidize things. Let the free market do what it does as much as possible. Now, is there any reason that he has to not mention nuclear, the one thing we all agree on, or we're coming close to it? That's the one I'd play on. And why can't he say that the other stuff is fine as long as we don't over subsidize it? It's like he's trying not to win with that message. I mean, it looks like virtue signaling. I just think he doesn't need that much nuance to make it perfect. Because here are the things that we should all be agreeing on. We should be agreeing on immigration, have a strong border security, but have some bipartisan group of economists decide who to let in and when. So you've got some independence about that decision, but, you know, be secure on the border. Everybody would agree with that. So he has all these topics from education, including public school alternatives, et cetera, all kinds of stuff that he could pick off Democrats. Let me just give you a sort of a mental, I guess, exercise. Let's say you wanted to pick off some Democrats, but you didn't want to lose your base. He could definitely pick some off on immigration just by being reasonable. He could definitely pick him off by being pro nuclear and pro green enough that he's not against it, but also wants to make our economy work. Well, I think he could make energy work. I think he could make Ukraine something we come together on. I think he could pull some Democrats off of that pile. He has all these issues, even the CRT and transgender stuff in schools. I think he could pick off Democrats on that at this point. Not before, but at this point. Sure. So he has this total ability to take 10% of the Democrats totally. And there's a. And he can mock the January 6 thing out of the news if he chooses to. If every time he's asked about it, he goes, all right, let's be serious. Are you really trying to tell the story that Republicans stage an insurrection without guns and then don't even answer any other question. I go, but you answer me the question. I know you have lots of questions for me, but honestly, I'm actually curious. Do you actually think that's what an insurrection would look like? Do you think I'm so bad at insurrections that I would think that trespassing for a day without weapons would conquer the United States. How does that even make sense? Right. So every attack on Trump at the moment is completely empty. All he has to do is reframe them. But so far he's not. So far he's not. He's not taking any of the free money that is available now that really wasn't available in 2016 or 2020. Because things have changed, right? At this point, getting both sides to agree on ending the Ukraine stuff, you don't think he can pick off people on both sides on that issue? We didn't have that issue before. He could definitely get some. Yeah. So the Trump has a super highway to win. He just has to stay in the middle of the highway and not say bad framing for topics that he doesn't need to frame badly. There's just no reason. But we'll see what he does. So I'm totally unimpressed by his energy take. To me, that's just a failure. Like, I can't give it even, like, nice try. I can't even say it's good for the base, really. It's not even good for the base. It's like, just bad. All right, here now is something you did not know about viruses. You've heard of measles. And I'm old enough to have had measles before there were vaccinations. And here's something I Learned today in 2019. So this is an article in WebMD from 2019. One of the things we learned about measles that we didn't know for 100 years. How long have we known that measles existed? Hundreds of years. Something like that. Here's something you didn't know. A number of studies are showing that the measles may have wiped out your body's memory for immunity of other things. The measles may have wiped out your immunity for other things. And that's something that they're learning just lately after 50 years of science. So, in other words, there is long, long measles. Long measles apparently exists because it can take out your immunity to other things, and then those other things get you. Now, that's something we didn't know for 50 years. So what do we know about the coronavirus? Do you think the coronavirus could take you out, like, 50 years from now? We could find out. Oh, it did some bad things that we didn't know. What about the vaccination itself? What about that do you think in 50 years we can find out it did something to us 50 years ago? It all seems possible, doesn't it? Now, does it change your mind that we only found out how dangerous measles is in 2019. 2019. And by the way, the article, the people talking about it were Fauci. Fauci was in the article, and Michael Mina, who you knew from the pandemic, talking about the absence of fast testing, rapid testing. So two of the characters who are well known from the pandemic were part of this story as well. They were the main people in the story. Interesting. What is your belief about the mainstream opinion of Long Covid? Not your own opinion. Not your own opinion. What do you believe? If you were to Google, what would be the front page of Google results? Not saying it's true. I'm just asking you what would appear. Would it say that Long Covid is pretty much a thing? Definitely. Would it say, maybe we're still looking into it? Or would it say, you know, I've got a feeling this isn't real? All right, the Google search. And again, I'm not endorsing this as being correct. If you just googled, you would see that Long Covid is very real. That's their claim, not mine. Very real. And it's kind of a big deal. Now, usually it's something that would last months. Now, what percentage of people, according to the Google front page, not me. What percentage of people do you think experience Long Covid, which they would define as, let's say, weeks or months of brain fog and fatigue, like 45%. 45%. Now, if you had, if you lost three months of your life to fatigue, how big of a risk would you take to avoid that? Of course, the vaccination risk is everything, including death, because it's an unknown. You don't know what happens to you or anybody else. There's no way to measure the two risks. But what if Covid, which was. Well, let me ask this question. Here's something I had genuine curiosity for. How did you know that Long Covid wouldn't be as bad as maybe Long measles is? How did you know that? I asked people how they knew it. A lot of people said they knew it because the data said that people were getting it and recovering and they knew people who. It was just a cold and they got over it. Now that's people telling me that they know the future because they know the present. To me, that's not even a thing, because in the present, I thought Measles was just something that happened to me then. But 50 years later, I found out. Ooh. Turns out I thought I was safe, but maybe I wasn't. But people, unlike the Measles case, there are a lot of people who looked at the COVID current information, and from that, they form certainty about the future. Now, I don't know how to do that. I only can look at current information and say, well, I don't know about the future. So I asked Ivor Cummins, who is a famous opponent to vaccinations, and he said, oh, I also asked if. How do you explain that the scientists and drug executives, presumably, but we don't know, took the shots themselves? Like, if you think they're dangerous, how would you explain that the people who invented them took them? And what I found was that the majority of people that I polled believe they didn't. They believe they didn't take them, which is totally possible. That is totally possible. You know, there was a day when I would have said, come on. Right? There was a time in my life I would have said, come on. If the executives and the scientists who invented them didn't take them, we would know that. There would be whistleblowers and, you know, it would just be so obvious. You would know it. Yes. Katie is also confusing the future and the past. So there's somebody on here who can't tell the difference between today and the future. Do you know there's a difference? You should look into that. So there are things that happen, like today that can be different than things that happen in the future. And sometimes the future is unknown, sometimes you don't know. I know. That's the first time you're finding that out, Katie. I know. So Katie is screaming in all caps, Scott, in 2020, we must immediately close the entire country down from all international flights and lockdown. First of all, Katie, that was about China only. China only. And that was when we didn't know what it was. And I said, well, at least shut down until we find out. So with the information we had at the time, that's called the present. Now, I know these concepts are unfamiliar, but the present is different than the past and also different than the future. Now, if I had known what you know, Katie, apparently you're a time traveler, and you knew from the first moment that it was no risk. You are my role model. I want to be like you and go on podcasts and shout in all capital letters that the future and the current are the same, that I can look at my future data today. And then with the benefit of the future data, I can make decisions today. Now, that's something I didn't know, Katie, so thank you for correcting me. Oh, Katie, you got very quiet. How embarrassing to be you right now. All right, so. But there is, and as people said to me, and I expected they would say this, that there is actually an entirely reasonable argument, a totally reasonable argument, why all of the scientists and all of the executives, or some portion of them might have skipped the shots and lied to you. That is possible in 2022 and 2021. I would say we've actually reached the point of ridiculousness where that was actually possible. Now, if I had to put odds on it, I would say not very high, but it's actually possible. Now, here's another possibility. The scientists and executives were so, let's say, enamored by how much money they were going to make, because even the scientists were going to get rich just on stock options. Anybody who owned company stocks got rich. So everybody was going to make a killing. And the only thing they had to do was tell you that it was safe. That's all they had to do. And they would all get rich. And then they had immunity, right? They had negotiated immunity. So once they negotiated immunity, they'd lost all incentives to tell you the truth. They had no incentive to tell you the truth because they had immunity. And if they lied, this is hypothetical, but if they lied, they would get rich and they would have no risk. So do you think that people who have a choice of getting rich, if they say one thing, are they objective anymore? Of course not. Of course not. So it's entirely possible, and it fits within my understanding of psychology, that everyone at the big pharma was in cognitive dissonance and convinced themselves they were working for the good. But we're doing the opposite. I'm not saying that's the case. I'm saying that would be fully within the normal scope of. Of human behavior. Totally accept it. Now, if you told me that that situation would remain that way forever, well, then I get skeptical. The longer you wait, the more somebody's gonna, you know, leave the ranks. You're gonna get a whistleblower. So here's the question I ask. Where's the whistleblowers? The ones who say, we knew it was bad for you, but we did it anyway? Where are they? How much would you have to make to be a whistleblower in this situation? Because I think if you're a scientist or you work there, you probably made $5 million. Don't you think, don't you think that like a top scientist probably made 5, 10, $20 million just on stock options, just for going to work? I think, you know, because they probably had a top scientist probably had a million or two in stock options which, you know, ballooned immediately up to 10 million or something. So. But suppose you offered $20 million for any whistleblower who could tell you that they, they knew it was dangerous and did it anyway without telling you the danger. Do you think anybody would answer for $20 million? Remember follow the Money? Well, if you say no, then you're releasing a little bit on the follow the money because the top executives would lose money if they became whistleblowers, right? The top executive has probably made a billion apiece or 100 million or something, so they would lose money. 20 million would be a bad deal for them. But if you're, let's say, just an employee, a staff person, let's say you made a million dollars in stock options pretty darn good for a year of work, but you take 20. I think you'd take 20 million. I don't know if it's taxable. Our whistleblower compensation is that taxable. Is there any special carve out for whistleblowers for taxes? Because I don't know if you get the 20 or you get the 10. So maybe you only get half of it, right? That's why I made it 20 million. So if you believe that they were bad people doing bad things, the questions you'd have to ask is why did they all take it? Or how did they all hide the fact they didn't? Or how could there not be at least one whistleblower, just one whistleblower who likes $20 million and likes attention? Just one. Now maybe there will be one. Maybe we just wait a little while and they'll feel safer to come out, right? It's possible. So here's where I went wrong, all right? I believe I was biased by people who take drugs, the illegal kind. If you have any experience in the illegal drug world, what's the number one rule of whether or not you put a drug in your mouth? Number one rule. What is it? It's an illegal drug. What's the number one rule before you put it in your mouth or you smoke it? Did you watch somebody else do it? That's the number one rule. Did you watch somebody reach into the same bag and take out the same pill or powder or whatever it's going to be and watch them put it in their mouth and then the next day they're still alive, right? If you took, like, if you took mushrooms from a bag that you don't know anybody's ever tried, well, you're really taking a chance there, right? So the number one rule, in fact, it was the rule I mentioned to my stepson before he violated the rule and died, because I'm pretty sure that he took some things that somebody handed him, right? And there was at least one other person who died from the same batch the same day. So the batch was that the batch was bad. Nobody tested from that batch, right? So it's the number one thing. So when I look at the vaccinations shots, the number one question I said is, well, are they taking them? Right. Are the executives taking them? What about the scientists who invented it? Are they taking them? What about Dr. Malone? Dr. Malone, the co. Inventor of the MRNA. Did he take it? He did. He did. He says he did. We can't prove anything, right? But I imagine you wouldn't lie about that. Now here's my second question. If you took the executives and the top scientists of the big pharma and you brought them before Congress, would it be legal to ask them the question, did you get the vaccination? It might be illegal to ask because it's their personal medical stuff, right? They could just say, I don't talk about my personal medical situation. So even Congress can't find out if they took the shot, right? Am I right or does. Let me think now, the government has a record of our vaccination status though, right? Don't they do a fact check? I mean, the whole point of having the vaccination cards is that everybody who got a vaccination was entered. So if the executives and the scientists who invented it, if they have a card and they're on record, you still don't know if they got saline because half of you believe they got saline, right? But don't you think, do you think that. That there would be no whistleblower if the executives and the scientists were taking saline? You don't think you get a whistleblower for that? See, I could imagine no whistleblower on the basic question of whether they knew it was dangerous. I could imagine no whistleblower on that, even if there was something there. But I can't imagine, I can't imagine. My head cannot hold in, hold into it that you wouldn't have a whistleblower by now if, If a number of them, like a large number got a saline shot. Do you believe they could keep that secret up Till now. I don't know. It is certainly. I think it's possible. Yeah. I think the. The things we've seen, from the Russia collusion to the laptop to. I mean, think about the fact there are 51 people who signed that Hunter laptop thing. 51 people. Not a single one of them has come forward and said, you know, that wasn't real. We were just trying to influence things. No whistleblowers there. That's 51 people. No whistleblowers. Tuskegee. There were no whistleblowers for a long time. Right. So there are lots of situations where there are no whistleblowers. It could happen. But here's where I'm telling you my bias. My bias is that I presumed it's most likely that they took it. And then I said, well, if the people who know the most about it took it, that's an argument. But then I have to admit, it never occurred to me that they could have taken saline shots and gotten away with it. But we do live in a world where they could have. I don't think it happened. Like, my assessment of the odds, the odds that the executives and scientists took saline, I'd put at 10%. I put that at 10%. And 10 is high. Yeah. I'm stretching to get to 10%, because that would be one hell of a. I mean, that would be the crime of the whole. Wouldn't that be the crime of the century? Or the biggest crime since Genghis Khan or biggest crimes in Stalin or Mao or something. But maybe, like, as somebody who's saying over here, I'm gullible now, remember, I believe we're a simulation. And I believe that your movie, in which I got everything wrong and I trusted big entities, is completely true. But at the same time, the other movie is completely true that I didn't trust any entities and I didn't trust the virus. So they're just both true at the same time. And there's nothing wrong with it. They can just both be true. They took it at a time we thought Covid was a bioweapon. But did they get boosters? Because we would also have a record of their boosters. I think what you'd find is that the people attached to it got boosted if they were old and had comorbidities, and maybe not if they're young. That's what I think you would find. All right, so the number of people who believe. Only 19% of the people I surveyed believe that the executives at the scientists actually took it themselves. 61% believed that it was a saline shot or they didn't take it. 61% of you believe the executives and the scientists who made it didn't take it. Isn't there some way to find out? Like, I get that if it was a super clever saline solution thing, maybe you couldn't, but I feel like there's some way to find out. I just don't know what it is. Yeah, Google it. Google it won't work. All right. But anyway, all it would take to make me happy would be a GoFundMe of $20 million for a whistleblower who could say something we don't already know. You'd have to specify what they specifically what their claim would have to be to pay them. But if they could prove it with documents especially, that would be amazing. DJ Baer wants you to know this is fake and he's going to say it 20 times so far. Just keep saying it. Yeah, he just wants to type it over and over again. DJ Bear, we're going to make you invisible here. You are now hidden, but I encourage you to keep typing. All right. Could sign something that we would know. Yeah. All right. I also wonder how many doctors have died from the shot. No, you. I'd love to know how many medical doctors, because there must be enough of them. How many medical doctors are in the United States? It's well over a hundred thousand, right? Million. I don't know. A hundred thousand. Does anybody have any idea? But don't you figure that the medical professionals are probably 98 vaccinated? Wouldn't you say? Maybe 90? But do you think there are any vaccinated people? No. Now here's something I said that nobody called me on. And. And you should have. I said something really sketchy earlier and you should have called me on it when I said that. Google says that at the moment, 45% of people are saying they have long Covid symptoms. You were supposed to say, aren't they all vaccinated? And then I'd say, oh, yeah, that's true. You can't tell if it's long Covid or long, long jab. Now, I think because of the timing and such, people can tell it's from the COVID not the shot. But I was expecting you to say that. I was expecting. All right. Yeah, Very suspect. All right, that's all for now. YouTube. I'll talk to you tomorrow. Thanks for joining. Have a good Sunday.