Episode 1552 Scott Adams - Lots of Bombshells and Amazing Stories Today. Don't Miss it
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: ----------- - Recommended: Tucker Carlson's Patriot Purge - Follow the money, Abbott Labs, COVID rapid tests - Merck's antiviral pill authorized in UK - Durham Investigation, bombshell story - Hit piece on Dave Portnoy - Tax credit for journalists in Biden bill? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
Wow, what a day. Incredible day coming up, and it's starting with the simultaneous sip. Yeah, all of you smart and sexy people, the people who watch this live stream, you know who you are. Well, you're sexier and smarter than usual today, and this one's going to be lit because the news is very gener…
View segment →, and we're going to dive into them. But first, to make this extra, extra special, turbo special, extreme special, all you need is a copper mug or a glass, a tankard, a stein, the canteen, a jug or flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for th…
View segment →akes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip. It happens now. Go. Is it? Did somebody just give me vitamin D and Regeneron monoclonal antibodies? Because I feel like my antibodies are on fire. Let's talk about the news. There's a new mayor in New York City, Eric Adams, who is no relati…
View segment →there's a reason he won. It looks like he's good at this stuff. So good job, Eric Adams, with your getting attention for your paychecks being in Bitcoin. How many of you have watched Tucker Carlson's special called "Patriot Purge"? Anybody? Anybody? So I started watching it, and I've watched, I don…
View segment →t of something changed, and you don't realize how much it altered the original. But I'll tell you, the first third is enough for me to recommend it. No, the first half of the first third is already absolutely — I recommend it. For context, you want to see some good context about what the media and…
View segment →y crimes were committed or that even anything wrong was done. Don't know. You have to wait till the other side of the story. But this was very predictable even if the money wasn't the reason. Until you see how many times follow the money works even when the person acting maybe was not influenced by…
View segment →right thing to do. So we need to know more about this. But I would rank this as maybe my best prediction. Would anybody disagree? Name anybody else who a year ago was telling you it had to be corruption. Name anybody else who said that in public. You know somebody who talks about this stuff, but I…
View segment →that's inevitable. But our march toward full cyborg status is well underway. I would say that's not going to happen anytime soon, but it's going to happen. Contact lenses that are little computer screens. The U.S. economy added over half a million jobs, and unemployment rate fell to 4.6 percent. Le…
View segment →ndustry in this country have to sell? Well, in this country they can sell you some monoclonal antibodies, and they're making them as fast as we're using them, I think. So there's that. But also vaccinations, of course. So vaccinations are the primary money competitor to therapeutics, right? Vaccines…
View segment →me have said that separations from the family are akin to torture psychologically, and the people will be damaged. But here's some context. I need to ask — correct me if I'm wrong — each of these people got separated in the context of a definite crime being committed. It's an immigration crime, not…
View segment →Can somebody answer me that? Was it only an opinion person who covered it? Because I think I saw Jesse Watters cover it last night. He was filling in for Tucker Carlson. Tucker had it. But really that's an opinion show. Dana Perino just had Jonathan Turley. Oh, he would be a great guest anyway. So…
View segment →ng to overthrow the government by colluding with Russia literally, allegedly, and then blaming Trump for it. It's really mind-boggling, isn't it? It's mind-boggling. Exactly what Q said all along. Somebody says, okay, but read Joel Pollak's write-up in Breitbart because that'll give you some good b…
View segment →with me, including choking specifically? Actually, all right. I'm seeing lots of yeses. Yes, it is confirmed. Confirmed. So it doesn't matter how many people say no. It doesn't matter if you've never seen it. Look at all the yeses, right? So basically Dave Portnoy is a victim of a hit piece in whic…
View segment →What do you think? Do you think it's still 50, 50, 75? In my experience it's closer to zero. Yeah, it's closer to zero. Might be five, 10 percent. You could give it that. But if the only thing you knew is what's in the news about Dave Portnoy, you should play the odds. Play the odds. It's closer to…
View segment →in case, a vitamin D drip, and some other stuff. Right? Oh, somebody says he's vaccinated. Oh, so that's the new information. Is that new? Because the initial reporting — oh, interesting. All right, I just got fact-checked in real time. It was 10 to 12 days of a chest cold. Interesting. Tim found th…
View segment →our doctor. And if he talked to his doctor, whichever way he went, then he did exactly what he says you should do: talk to your doctor. And that's everybody's advice. That's mainstream medical advice: talk to your doctor, right? So somehow Tim Pool has been framed because it makes a better narrativ…
View segment →internet, why is it that only two percent of shirts can do what this shirt could do? We've been making shirts in civilization for a long, long time. Are you telling me that this one shirt company, the only one, the only one figured out how to make a shirt that doesn't wrinkle and feels good and look…
View segment →ybe one of them was pretty good, and the others were just different material, different shirts. They all have the same fit, so that part's good. But I don't understand why people can't make a shirt every single time. Do you know how often a shirt-making company should be able to make a great shirt?…
View segment →sn't? How hard can it be? It turns out it wasn't hard. It was pretty easy to make a T-shirt that wasn't terrible. And so they made them, and apparently they're doing well. So Untuckit is pretty good, but I would say I still don't understand. Why just make all their shirts like the best one? All rig…
View segment →esville rally, and then Black Lives Matter became a big thing. And then there were a bunch of high-profile police actions in which Black people were killed. And then Black Lives Matter was more and more popular. Well, just about the time they didn't need them anymore — whoever they is — their popula…
View segment →eir movement went away. Do you remember Occupy Wall Street? Occupy Wall Street, big old thing, big thing, and then it went away. Why did Occupy Wall Street go away? Is it because income inequality got fixed? No, nothing happened. They just went away. Why did Antifa and BLM, who were so big under Tr…
View segment →Wow, what a day. Incredible day coming up, and it's starting with the simultaneous sip. Yeah, all of you smart and sexy people, the people who watch this live stream, you know who you are. Well, you're sexier and smarter than usual today, and this one's going to be lit because the news is very generous today. The news has served up some delicious topics, and we're going to dive into them.
But first, to make this extra, extra special, turbo special, extreme special, all you need is a copper mug or a glass, a tankard, a stein, the canteen, a 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 hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip. It happens now. Go.
Is it? Did somebody just give me vitamin D and Regeneron monoclonal antibodies? Because I feel like my antibodies are on fire.
Let's talk about the news. There's a new mayor in New York City, Eric Adams, who is no relation to me. I know that's the first question. He's Adam, Simon Adams. He identifies as Black. I identify as Black. But that's a coincidence. There is no familiar connection that I know of. There are some cousins I've never met, but I don't think he's one of them.
Anyway, Eric Adams, new mayor of New York City, just did a really awesome thing. Talk about being new on the job and starting strong. Here was his tweet. He says he's going to take his first three paychecks in Bitcoin because he wants to turn New York City into the cryptocurrency center of the world. That's really good. Now, forget about the idea of turning New York City into a cryptocurrency center. I don't know if that's good or not. But the fact that he promoted it this way is a really, really strong game.
So I didn't follow him too much, so I suppose there's a reason he won. It looks like he's good at this stuff. So good job, Eric Adams, with your getting attention for your paychecks being in Bitcoin.
How many of you have watched Tucker Carlson's special called "Patriot Purge"? Anybody? Anybody? So I started watching it, and I've watched, I don't know, half of the first third of it. It's in three parts, and I'm already blown away because I thought I knew — I've been following the story sort of like everybody else — but it's interesting how things change from the original story. And maybe you don't notice the change because it might be part of something changed, and you don't realize how much it altered the original.
But I'll tell you, the first third is enough for me to recommend it. No, the first half of the first third is already absolutely — I recommend it. For context, you want to see some good context about what the media and everybody else is doing to you. It's really good. Now, I don't know if it gets crazy later. There may be something in it that I don't like at some point. Maybe. I don't know. But at the moment, highly recommended.
Do you remember me telling you — and I tweeted it often — that the reason the United States didn't have rapid tests was almost certainly because of corruption? Does anybody remember me saying that? That there had to be corruption because the government was not only not approving rapid tests — and they were certainly available to approve — they were not only not approving them but they weren't explaining why. Right? They weren't explaining why.
And now here's something we learned. Matt Stoller did some reporting, and the summary of it is that the FDA person in charge of recommending which rapid tests are used recommended only Abbott Labs, which is where he used to work. That's right. The person who decides what company's going to get recommended for approval in the FDA recommended only Abbott Labs at first initially. And then when other companies came in and said, "Hey, how about us?" there was bureaucratic slowness. A slowness which would be hard to explain during a pandemic until you learned that the person who may be central to the story had one stronger connection to one company than to the other companies. The one he had the strongest connection to, reportedly.
Now this is the story. He approached Abbott Labs, and they weren't even in the business of making rapid tests. And it looks like this individual said, "Hey, why don't you make some rapid tests?" And I'm sure he told them that he was central to the approval process. And so Abbott made some tests, and they had a monopoly on the market for months and months and months during a time when they could pretty much charge what they wanted because they didn't have competition.
Other companies also tried to get approved but got slowed down, not because their technology was necessarily bad, but they needed to present more data, needed to fill out the forms better. A little bit of bureaucratic slowness.
So here's my bottom line on this. Have I ever told you that follow the money is not only predictive but also tells you what happened in the past even when it's not the real reason? That's a key point. Follow the money will take you to the truth even when it looks like the money had nothing to do with it.
So if you dug into the story and talked to the individual involved, I don't know this, but I'll bet you he'd have some kind of explanation like, "This. I was only aware of one company that could ramp up this quickly, and the other companies were not as capable, and so they didn't get approved as quickly." Could be the whole story. It could be that his strong connection to Abbott Labs caused more of them to be produced than would have otherwise. Totally possible. Totally possible.
So until you hear his side of the story, don't assume that anything unethical or illegal or sketchy happened. But every other European country seemed to get this done. Do you think that the United States is less capable than our European allies and friends? I don't know. Doesn't seem like it. Seems like on everything else we were comparable or better on a lot of stuff. So you always have to hear the other side of this. But follow the money took you to exactly what I told you it would take you to. Am I right?
I told you it was corruption, which means follow the money. I mean, this is another way to say follow the money, right? Corruption. If you follow the money, you would go directly to the person who approves them, and you would directly find these connected to the one company that got approved. And because the other ones didn't get approved, we didn't have enough, and there was no competition to lower the price.
I predicted it would look exactly the way it looks, which is not to say any crimes were committed or that even anything wrong was done. Don't know. You have to wait till the other side of the story. But this was very predictable even if the money wasn't the reason. Until you see how many times follow the money works even when the person acting maybe was not influenced by that directly. People still tend to talk themselves into the path where they make money. But it might happen somewhat legitimately in the sense that perhaps he talked himself into it being exactly the right thing to do.
So we need to know more about this. But I would rank this as maybe my best prediction. Would anybody disagree? Name anybody else who a year ago was telling you it had to be corruption. Name anybody else who said that in public. You know somebody who talks about this stuff, but I think I'm the only one. I identified this a year in advance, and to me it was obvious from the start. But again, we have to hear the other side before we make any allegations.
Here's some interesting news. The University of Washington is working on contact lenses that would allow you to see things projected onto them so you can see directions and things in your contact lens that nobody else could see. Now, it was always going to go that way, wasn't it? Wasn't it? You knew this. Someday there would be stuff in your contact lens. It feels like that's inevitable. But our march toward full cyborg status is well underway. I would say that's not going to happen anytime soon, but it's going to happen. Contact lenses that are little computer screens.
The U.S. economy added over half a million jobs, and unemployment rate fell to 4.6 percent. Let me tell you everything you need to know about economics. You ready? Here's everything you need to know about economics. Supply and demand. Number two, if unemployment looks good, everything else is probably pretty good too. Now there could be exceptions, but generally speaking, if your employment rate is going in the right direction or it's already low, things are going to work out.
Now we have an unusual situation with massive debt and pandemics and stuff, so there could be some black swan situation going on here. But if you see the unemployment rate at 4.6 when there's inflation — it's still a little higher than you want it, right? But we also have a little more inflation than we want. So unemployment works to lower inflation because there'll be more people to offer themselves for the jobs. So this is a really, really healthy number. Good news. Doesn't mean we're out of the woods, but that's the real good news.
Well, in other news, the pandemic is over. Sort of. Almost. Kind of. And it goes like this. The UK is the first country to approve an antiviral pill. So a pill that you would take once you suspected you had COVID symptoms, and it would directly work against the virus. And the UK says it could be a game changer. So they think it's a big, big deal. And this is developed by Merck and Ridgeback Biotherapeutics.
Here's why I think this is a bigger deal than you do, and you probably think it's a pretty big deal. You know our big controversy about vaccination or no vaccination. It's like all we want to talk about. And you know that the pharma companies owned the news. You knew that, right? Big Pharma is the big advertiser for the news, so the news is not going to run stories that are directly horrible to their biggest advertisers. You know, human nature. Follow the money. It's just not going to happen. They'd have to do it if other people were reporting it, but you're not going to see one of the major news companies break a story about a pharma company. I don't think that's ever going to happen, not if they also advertise.
So here's what's important. Until we get these approved — these tablets that you can take — until we get them, what does the pharma industry in this country have to sell? Well, in this country they can sell you some monoclonal antibodies, and they're making them as fast as we're using them, I think. So there's that. But also vaccinations, of course. So vaccinations are the primary money competitor to therapeutics, right? Vaccines are the competition for therapeutics. They're not the same, and I'm not recommending you do one or the other. There's no recommendation here. I'm just saying they're direct financial competitors even though they do different things.
So until now we never had pharma versus pharma, am I right? We never had pharma versus pharma. So now we've got Big Pharma, Merck, that'll have a competition to vaccinations. What do you expect to happen next? Follow the money. You had not much competition for vaccinations, and the news was owned, and the government was owned by the pharma. What messages would you expect to come out of that situation? Vaccines are safe. Everybody should get one. And you better get a booster too.
Now, how predictable would that be if you knew that Big Pharma had infinite money, they controlled the news, and they controlled the government? What would you expect to come out of that? Exactly that. Right now, again, remember the rule is not that if you follow the money you find a crime. Often that's true, but that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying if you follow the money, even if people say they were ignoring the money and even if it looks like they were, you still end up in the same place. You end up in the same place.
So how will the message change now that it's pharma versus pharma? Because it used to be pharma versus the government versus the news, and there was no competition. Pharma could put out whatever message it wanted because the news would just parrot it, and the government was owned. Obviously I'm using hyperbole to make the story here. Right now, what happens when it becomes pharma versus pharma? Therapeutics versus vaccines. Prediction time. Follow the money. What's going to happen? Suddenly you should expect bad news about vaccines. See what I'm saying?
The moment — probably the same day that this drug is approved in the United States — the media is going to turn on vaccinations. Not totally. Not totally, because some of them still get their money from that source. But there may be enough entities that get their money from Merck. You're going to start seeing some stories about side effects and long-term risk and all that stuff. So follow the money predicts that everything you've heard about vaccinations being good will start to morph into, "Well, maybe there's more risk than we thought." Here. Watch it. Watch that happen. The shift is coming, and you'll be able to watch it in real time.
So Biden said the reports of giving maybe settling some legal disputes with immigrants who were separated at the border — he said it's garbage that they're going to get $450,000 per person. I take Biden's description of this as correct, meaning that the part he was saying is garbage is the $450,000 part. He wasn't saying that no settlement will happen. He's just saying that that number is crazy. Who knows what the number will be?
And some have said that separations from the family are akin to torture psychologically, and the people will be damaged. But here's some context. I need to ask — correct me if I'm wrong — each of these people got separated in the context of a definite crime being committed. It's an immigration crime, not a violent crime. But am I right that all the separations happened in the context of people who definitely had committed a crime because they were here illegally? Now you could argue it shouldn't be a crime or whatever, but current laws — all of them were in criminal status, correct? Correct.
What do we do with American citizens when they commit crimes? Do we send the whole family to jail to keep them together? Do we absolve the person who's guilty and say, "Ah, we'd love to send you to jail, but there's no way we could stop separating you from your family, so I guess we won't prosecute you because we don't want to separate you from your family"?
Has anybody even thought to add the context that we routinely separate children from parents? It's called the legal system. We do it all the time. Do you know who Mr. and Mrs. Rittenhouse don't get to spend much time with their son? Because he's currently incarcerated for what looks like not even a crime on the surface. It looks like not even a crime. Yes, the most normal thing we do in this country is separate children from their parents. Now you could tell me that this is different, but I'm not sure you can. You could convince me it's different enough that we should look at it so differently.
By the way, I'm not in favor of separating kids from their parents. I'm just saying we should keep things in context.
Here's what I love about this story. It feels like Democrats have stopped trying to win. Scott, you don't follow the Rittenhouse case. Yeah, I do. It's just that there's nothing there. The Rittenhouse case is this: Show us the evidence that it was in self-defense. Here's nothing. Okay, well, do you have anything else to make your case that it wasn't just pure self-defense the way it looks exactly like on the video? Well, I got this. Okay, that's nothing. That's pretty much the whole story. If anybody finds anything that would suggest Rittenhouse should be going to jail, let me know, because I don't think they found it yet. We'll see.
Anyway, what I love about this story is the Democrats aren't even trying anymore. Imagine any level of settlement. So let's say it's not $450,000. Let's say they talk it all the way down to $5,000. Possible, right? Let's say they talk it all the way down from $450,000 per person to $5,000 per person, and then they settle for that. Democrats still lose the election, right? They still lose in 2022 because there's no way you can sell this at any dollar amount because it's the principle. It's the principle thing. It's not the $450,000 that got our attention, but it doesn't matter what the dollar amount is. You don't pay your criminals. Stop paying criminals.
Do you know what happens when you pay people for being criminals? You get more of it. So once again the Democrats prove that they do not understand human motivation whatsoever. But I love this story because they're just basically — it's like it's Alec Baldwin except government. Basically the Democrats have gone full Alec Baldwin. It's like, "Ah, yeah, I don't need to check this gun. It's already been checked by that woman with blue hair who's never handled the gun before, so I'm fine."
All right, here's the strangest thing that happened. There is a gigantic blockbuster story, probably one of the biggest stories of the year, and it's not on CNN, at least not on their website, and it's not on Fox News, at least not on their website. Now, unless that's changed in the last few minutes, that one of the biggest stories by far — by far one of the biggest stories we've seen all year — is not being covered by the two major medias. Yeah, the Durham indictments. But Glenn Greenwald is on it, and Chuck Ross, and Joel Pollak is on it. So you've seen a lot of very credible people on it, but not seeing that in Fox News yet. What's going on there?
Now remember my fake news filter. If one of the two — either Fox News or CNN — says it didn't happen, it didn't happen. Of course that's not 100 percent accurate, but that's a good rule to follow. If one of them says it didn't happen, it didn't happen. But neither Fox News nor CNN are reporting it didn't happen. They're just not talking about it. What's going on?
Joel says Fox covered it. I assume you mean on the air, but look at the website. Find it on the website. That's all I'm saying. Find it on the website. I'm pretty sure the website gets more traffic than the on the air. Am I wrong? And was it the opinion people who covered it or the news people? Can somebody answer me that? Was it only an opinion person who covered it? Because I think I saw Jesse Watters cover it last night. He was filling in for Tucker Carlson. Tucker had it. But really that's an opinion show. Dana Perino just had Jonathan Turley. Oh, he would be a great guest anyway.
So you probably know this story by now, which is if the indictment is telling us what we think it's telling us, there is a well-known — at least within political circles — there's a Democrat who is not only well-placed in the Democratic Party, you know, somebody who's an activist, but also had extreme connections to Putin and Russia. And he's the source of the Steele dossier, at least some important parts of it.
So there's an American Democrat who allegedly lied to a Russian — an American who was born in Russia — and then the Steele talked to the Russian. Then I think the Russian lied about where he got his information. And then the next thing you know, there's a Steele dossier. The Steele dossier is the biggest news. You've got the whole Russia collusion. But here's the punch line. There was Russian collusion, apparently, and it was on the Clinton side, looks like. If the Durham report — if the indictments turn out to be factually grounded — it looks a lot like an actual coup, like an actual literal coup. And it looks like Hillary is behind it. Now there's no smoking gun in Hillary's hand, but it's hard to imagine she didn't know about it, if you know what I mean.
So certainly there are Democrats who tried to overthrow the government with the fake news that actually happened in our lifetime. At least one Democrat, probably more, literally tried to overthrow the government with fake news, and it almost worked. It almost got Trump impeached on fake charges in which the Democrats were actually guilty.
Now, do you remember what I told you about narcissism and Democrats? And I told you that I'm not sure that Democrats are actually politically oriented. They're just narcissists. And part of the checklist to know whether you're a narcissist is a thing called projection, which is you blame the other side for the exact crime you're doing.
Now you've heard some of you have heard me saying that's not a thing. Yeah, and I said it a lot. I said there's no such thing as projection. You know that's not happening. Boy, is that a thing. Let me tell you, I've never been more wrong about something. Until you see it, you can't believe it because it's so — well, it's just hard to believe when you see it that somebody would actually be murdering somebody and accusing you of murder while they're murdering you. Think, well, that can't actually be happening, can it? Oh yes it does. And I can confirm with 100 percent certainty it's a thing.
I don't think it's a thing as often as people use it, so I will give myself a little wiggle room. The way it's used on Twitter is just an insult, and it's not a diagnosis. So I'd say 90 percent of it is probably just people arguing on Twitter. But there's a real thing, and the Democrats consistently seem to be racist and accuse Republicans of being racist. They consistently do whatever is the worst thing you can do. In this case, trying to overthrow the government by colluding with Russia literally, allegedly, and then blaming Trump for it. It's really mind-boggling, isn't it? It's mind-boggling.
Exactly what Q said all along. Somebody says, okay, but read Joel Pollak's write-up in Breitbart because that'll give you some good background.
Well, since we're talking about fake news, this is one of the biggest stories for the last several years, you know, the Russia collusion hoax. And now we know it's just a complete hoax. So that's what we know about the news. So the major media that we know this for sure, the major media just for years covered a story exactly the opposite of the truth. Exactly the opposite of truth.
Now that's your context, that the news can be complete BS. Here's some more context. I talk about this often: the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect, which is that if you're an expert in a specific field and you see a news story about that, you know all the problems with it. Oh, the journalists got everything wrong. I'm an expert, I know. But everybody else reading it doesn't know. They think, well, probably got that right. But as soon as you read something that you're not an expert on, you start believing it. Oh, well, that's probably right. But the experts don't think so.
Now this also works with celebrities. Let me tell you, I know this firsthand, reporting on celebrities. And how many times have you seen this about me? How many times have you seen a news report — usually I tweet them in — in which somebody's described me incorrectly or my opinion incorrectly? You've all seen it, right? I'm pretty sure every one of you has seen a fake news article about me. And how many times have I been falsely accused in my personal life of heinous crimes? Pretty often. Pretty often. It's a celebrity problem. You get accused of usually sex crimes.
I've talked about someone. The worst offender is somebody I never met, somebody with mental health issues who lives in Canada, and it's pretty sure I'm flying up to Canada and ransacking her computer and sexually molesting her on a regular basis. And she calls the people I work with to tell in great detail about all the crimes I did in Canada while I was not in Canada.
Now if you're a normie and you're not famous, you say to yourself that sounds like maybe there's something wrong with you, Scott. You seem to get a suspiciously large number of false accusations. With all of that smoke there's got to be a little fire there. Nope. Nope. If I could teach you one thing, it is that celebrity news typically is just wrong and just completely wrong. There's no fire there. There's just smoke.
And this brings me to the Dave Portnoy hit piece. Now if you know Dave Portnoy, he's the founder of Barstool, right? It's a big site. He's made a lot of money. He's rich. He's famous. He appears on Tucker Carlson's show, does lots of stuff that gets him some attention. But a Business Insider spent eight months trying to find some dirt on him, and the only thing they could find was sketchy stuff about his sex life.
I don't think — somebody says, "Scott, you are not a celebrity." Seriously? Okay. So the best I could find is some women who had these vague accusations about, I don't know, rough consensual sex. What? That's it? They had consensual sex that may have involved some consensual choking or something. Which, by the way, if you don't know this, is the number one requested thing by women. That you women won't know this is necessarily true, or maybe you do. But in the comments, can the men confirm? At least the single men, single men who have been single recently. So I don't know what it was like 20 years ago, but if you've been single recently, can you confirm for me that one of the most frequently requested things by women is to be rough with me, including choking specifically? Actually, all right. I'm seeing lots of yeses. Yes, it is confirmed. Confirmed.
So it doesn't matter how many people say no. It doesn't matter if you've never seen it. Look at all the yeses, right? So basically Dave Portnoy is a victim of a hit piece in which the entire point of it is his sex life is a lot like normal. That's it. That was the hit piece. His sex life looks pretty normal, but some women report some bad reactions to it when they were pressed.
Here's the thing. Let me give you my life experience percentages. If a person is non-famous — non-famous, this is the key word, non-famous — and you hear a credible person say that they committed, let's say, a sex crime, what do you think are the odds it will be true? Forget about you don't know anything about it. You only know it's a non-famous person, and you know that a credible person made an accusation. How often in your experience will the credible accusation actually be true? What percentage? Give me a percentage, zero to 100 percent.
John says 10. 10, I see more 10. Give me some more. Remember, I'm talking about non-famous people. 60, 50, 50, seeing twenties. Here's my personal estimate: more like 50 to 75. Because it takes a lot to make an accusation like that. The accuser has to take some big risk to make an accusation. So I don't think it's 10. I think it's probably 50 to 75 percent. And that still leaves a lot of false accusations. But I would say if you were first presented with the accusation, don't assume it's true. But you could put some statistics on it and say, yeah, this person's taking a pretty big risk for an unknown person. You know, there doesn't seem to be anything in it for them. 50 to 75.
All right, now turn around. There's a sex accusation against a famous person, especially one in politics. And you know Dave — arguably Dave Portnoy is involved in political speech. What are the odds that a famous person's sex accusations turn out to be true? What do you think? Do you think it's still 50, 50, 75? In my experience it's closer to zero. Yeah, it's closer to zero. Might be five, 10 percent. You could give it that. But if the only thing you knew is what's in the news about Dave Portnoy, you should play the odds. Play the odds. It's closer to a 90 percent chance that the odds are BS.
If he were not famous, I would reverse it. If you were not famous, I would reverse it. Now again, this is not based on science. This is based on life experience as someone who gets accused pretty much every year of a horrible crime. I don't think I've gone a full year without being accused of something that would put me in jail for 20 years. I mean, it's just — and ask other celebrities, male celebrities. Ask other male celebrities how many times they've been falsely accused of sex crimes. It would be almost every one. I think it would be almost everyone.
All right, there's also a Tim Pool story today. Tim Pool. And this is fake news mixed in with the real news. I'll sort it out for you. So Tim Pool, as most of you know, independent journalist, very successful, very prominent on the internet, etc. And he has had lots of content in the past about vaccinations, pro and con, and ivermectin, pro and con. And so he gets a really bad case of COVID. And apparently, reportedly, he's unvaccinated. I don't know if that's confirmed, but that's the story. He's unvaccinated and had a really tough time with it. It was bad.
Then he talked to Joe Rogan, and Joe Rogan hooked him up with a doctor, even offered to pay. He hooked him up with a doctor who gave him the full cocktail of therapeutics. So he got monoclonal antibodies, he got ivermectin just in case, a vitamin D drip, and some other stuff. Right? Oh, somebody says he's vaccinated. Oh, so that's the new information. Is that new? Because the initial reporting — oh, interesting. All right, I just got fact-checked in real time. It was 10 to 12 days of a chest cold. Interesting. Tim found the doctor by himself.
All right, this is perfect. What was my last story? My last story is that the news when it talks about famous people is usually wrong, right? It does. It's not just about sex stories, but stories about famous people are usually wrong. And look at this one. I mean, this one was fresh, and you could already see that the vaccination status was wrong and how he found the doctor was wrong. Apparently, reportedly — I don't know yet. Somebody says he tweeted that he wouldn't take it, but somebody's saying that it's confirmed he took it. I guess we don't know either way whether he took it or not. It doesn't change my take on this.
Which was number one, reportedly when he first went to an urgent care center they wouldn't give him anything. So apparently if you just go and say I've got COVID symptoms, they don't give you nothing. I don't know how bad it has to be before you can get some therapeutics. But apparently he had to go and hunt it down himself. Is our health care system this bad that we don't give people the full cocktail the minute they say that they have symptoms? Apparently so. Apparently it's not bad.
But here's the fake news part of it. Tim Pool was framed as a vaccination denier, which he isn't. My understanding — can I get a confirmation on that? Give me a fact check. Give me a fact check. That's accurate, right? He's not a vaccination denier. Whether or not he's vaccinated is a separate question because I believe his take is you should talk to your doctor. And if he talked to his doctor, whichever way he went, then he did exactly what he says you should do: talk to your doctor. And that's everybody's advice. That's mainstream medical advice: talk to your doctor, right?
So somehow Tim Pool has been framed because it makes a better narrative: anti-vaxxer gets a bad case and wishes he was vaccinated. You know, they add that as if he's thinking that. So the Tim Pool piece is mostly some combination of bad framing or fake news depending on your point of view. And of course they're going to go after him for being pro-ivermectin, which also didn't happen. Can you confirm this? He's being painted as someone who is pro-ivermectin and in fact took it. But correct me if I'm wrong, he didn't say you should take ivermectin, did he? I think he said do what your doctor tells you. And apparently his doctor was okay with the ivermectin. So there we may hear the story is different by tomorrow. I wouldn't be surprised.
Anyway, my only point about that is that celebrity news is almost always wrong.
Yesterday I posted a picture of myself in a shirtless — which you're used to on the internet — with a really good shirt I was wearing. And I was saying, why is it that I have this one shirt that is great material, feels good, never wrinkles, looks great, feels great, never wrinkles? So I've got one shirt that's like that. And so I asked the internet, why is it that only two percent of shirts can do what this shirt could do? We've been making shirts in civilization for a long, long time. Are you telling me that this one shirt company, the only one, the only one figured out how to make a shirt that doesn't wrinkle and feels good and looks good? Only one? Are you freaking kidding? What is going on?
So everybody asks me who makes that shirt. So I'll tell you. It's a Tasso Elba Supima cotton polyester blend. So it's cotton and polyester. It's some kind of special cotton called Supima. And the brand is Tasso Elba, T-A-S-S-O E-L-B-A. Now caution, caution. I don't know that they have any other shirts that are that good. So hear me carefully. The other problem is even when a company can make a great shirt, they will stop making the great shirt and make bad ones.
So as I was tweeting on this, you might not be surprised that the company Untuckit immediately contacted me. Have you all seen the commercials for Untuckit? They're dress shirts, but they're designed so they don't hang down too long, and you can just wear them untucked. Now I own quite a number of Untuckit products. And the reason I own quite a number of them is that the first Untuckit shirt I bought was awesome. It was awesome. It didn't wrinkle, looked great, felt great. It was great. It wasn't as soft as this Tasso Elba thing is, but it was a solid shirt.
And so I did what anybody would do if they get such a good experience. I bought a bunch more. Here's the thing. The other shirts that I bought were made of different material in a different way. They had this one perfect shirt, and I would have bought 100 of them over my lifetime if they could just make that one shirt. Just make it a different color maybe. Yeah, add a little tweak or a feature, but just keep making that shirt.
But the way companies work is they have to have lots of product because it gives them bigger exposure, makes them seem more serious, et cetera. So you have to add to yourself space to take away other people's shelf space in part. And I tried all the other shirts, and maybe one of them was pretty good, and the others were just different material, different shirts. They all have the same fit, so that part's good. But I don't understand why people can't make a shirt every single time. Do you know how often a shirt-making company should be able to make a great shirt? Every time. Did nobody put that shirt on before they took it to mass production? Just put it on, see how it fits. It can't be that much of a mystery.
Likewise, I tried forever to find a good T-shirt. And I think this one is Clean Fresh Tees or whatever it is. They advertise on the internet. So there was a company that said, hey, every T-shirt in the world is terrible. Why don't we make one that isn't? How hard can it be? It turns out it wasn't hard. It was pretty easy to make a T-shirt that wasn't terrible. And so they made them, and apparently they're doing well. So Untuckit is pretty good, but I would say I still don't understand. Why just make all their shirts like the best one?
All right, that was a detour you didn't care about.
I saw a tweet from somebody named Comrade Bridget, a woman who said more and more left women — so women on the left — are standing up for themselves and refusing to date men who watch porn. So apparently this is sort of a movement. Women on the left are refusing to date men who watch porn. What would be the possible unintended side effects if this became a thing, a bigger thing? Unintended side effects? Well, civilization would be fathered entirely from that point on by men who have low sex drive and/or are huge liars. So we would be breeding selectively men with low sex drive, probably low testosterone, and/or possibly gigantic liars who say that they don't do that.
I've told this story before. There was a woman I knew in my 20s, and she had a technique for filtering new dates to find out if they were good or bad people on the first date before they even got to know each other. She would just look at him and say, "Do you masturbate?" On the first date. She would just throw that in the conversation totally out of nowhere, just throw it in. And what did most men say? Well, to their credit, most men said, "Well, yeah, yeah, yeah, I do." But she told me there was one guy who said he didn't masturbate because he doesn't need to. He doesn't masturbate because he doesn't need to. What do you think she did with that guy? She said, "Well, I found my first liar." That was his last date. Such an obvious lie.
But the woman who tweeted this, whose name is Bridget, she describes herself as a radical feminist, Marxist, and revolutionary. No, not radical. She describes herself as a Marxist and revolutionary feminist.
I've got another possible explanation of what's going on here, big picture sort of thing. Before there was porn, there were men and women of various sexable characteristics. Some very sexy, and you'd like to get with them. Some very not sexy, and you didn't want to get with them very much. But it's all you had. People, right? Just people or your imagination. And people are better than your imagination even if your imagination is pretty good. Mine's pretty good. People are still better. So if you had a choice, you'd take a person even maybe not somebody who's a perfect sexual monster. Maybe you'd lower your sights a little bit.
Then comes porn, which is not only made better every year but more targeted to your exact kink. And if you can target somebody's exact kink, it's got like a 10x power to it compared to generic stuff that's made for everybody. And once you get to that level of porn power, the women on the one side of the distribution curve — the ones who are let's say not killing it with the looks and the sex appeal — they have gone below the level which makes them worthwhile for dating. Because you might prefer a really hot woman over porn if you're a man, but you no longer prefer a not hot woman over porn.
Men, back me up on this. No matter what you think of porn, it's still better than some people, right? It's not better than somebody you really connect with, but it's better than a lot of people. And porn's getting better while people are getting worse. I would argue that being a Marxist revolutionary feminist is maybe one problem that makes porn look more attractive to men. Just putting that out there.
All right, this was actually a Tim Pool tweet I saw coincidentally. Black Lives Matter is now more unpopular than popular. So it crossed over. So remember way back in the Charlottesville rally, and then Black Lives Matter became a big thing. And then there were a bunch of high-profile police actions in which Black people were killed. And then Black Lives Matter was more and more popular. Well, just about the time they didn't need them anymore — whoever they is — their popularity sank because the media is no longer propping them up. So the media has sort of withdrawn their support, if you will. And then they've been less active.
Do you believe that Black Lives Matter was ever an organic movement? Was it organic, or was there some force that was funding them and moving them? Because it's kind of weird that the thing they were trying to fix didn't get fixed, and yet their movement went away. Do you remember Occupy Wall Street? Occupy Wall Street, big old thing, big thing, and then it went away. Why did Occupy Wall Street go away? Is it because income inequality got fixed? No, nothing happened. They just went away.
Why did Antifa and BLM, who were so big under Trump, why did they just sort of fade away a little bit? Well, I think they don't need them anymore. I think that whoever is creating the fake news on the left just doesn't need them anymore.
By the way, if you've never met somebody who creates fake news for a living, you really need to. It'll change everything about how you see the world. There's a large volume of the fake news that I think goes through the same people. So I think a lot of what you see on the left and the right probably gets filtered through a fairly small number of people before you see it all.
All right, the Build Back Better bill is so complicated that apparently somebody only just found out there's tax breaks for the news business in there. No reason. They're just good tax breaks in the proposed bill for the press and media companies. Do you know why they deserve tax breaks? I don't. No reason given. The obvious reason is that the Democrats work with this industry, and they're just scratching each other's backs.
All right, here's my take on that. Wherever things are complicated, that's where fraud is hiding. So anything complicated is riddled with fraud. So the financial advice business is real complicated. Oh, you could get this financial vehicle or this one. Riddled with fraud because it's complicated and people can't understand it on their own. Everything that's complicated is riddled with fraud because that's where it can hide. Fraud can't hide in simple situations because it would just be obvious. Oh, that's obvious fraud. But wherever there's complexity, there's always fraud. It's just guaranteed.
So we have Congress writing these hugely complicated bills with all kinds of topics and legalese and everything. And we're expected to support them or not, or tell our Congress people to support them or not. And even Congress doesn't read it. It's too complicated.
Here's what I would do if I were president. I would reject every bill that wasn't written in a way the public could understand it. Pretty popular, right? Talking about a populist opinion. I will reject every bill no matter what the topic if the public can't understand it. Now the public might not need to know every detail of it, but at least there should be a summary with a little bit of a pro and con. Says, oh, this would do this, and here's why. Let's take the media tax breaks. This would give tax breaks to these certain media companies. Here's the argument for why, and then here's the argument against. Yeah, you'd vote for me, of course. If I ran for office, I would be destroyed by the media, so it's a bad bet. But yeah, I'd be an excellent president in some ways, probably bad in a lot of other ways. So yeah, if you can't understand the bill, you have to oppose it.
The San Francisco Chronicle had an opinion piece. Now keep in mind this is San Francisco, all right? So consider the source. And it's an opinion piece. And it says our current requirements and punitive actions — talking about the pandemic mandates and stuff — suggests that many of California's health officials may be going off gut feel or worse, ideology, rather than a calculable risk methodology. So the San Francisco Chronicle in the heart of San Francisco is saying, I think maybe our pandemic requirements are not based on science. That's a shift. It's a zeitgeist shift.
All right, there's more Fauci versus Rand Paul. I saw a video that's new, right? Is that video I saw Rand Paul grilling Fauci again yesterday or something? I think so, right? It's new. Okay, it's new. And in it we see exactly what I told you was the case. Who else told you this before I did? Did I tell you that the argument between Fauci and Rand Paul was really a definitional one? Did I not tell you that Fauci was just using a different definition of gain-of-function than Rand Paul was, and that that's what it was? Well, Rand Paul basically just took that approach and just said it looks like you just changed the definition so that you wouldn't look so bad. And I think that's exactly what happened. I mean, I don't know, but it does look like they changed the definition of gain-of-function on the website to hide the fact that it had been a larger definition than they narrowed it.
Now I'm not the one who's going to say that Fauci did anything wrong in terms of funding gain-of-function. I don't feel like I can make that call with what I know because it comes down to this. It comes down to this: Was the type of gain-of-function more potential benefit than risk or more risk than benefit? In other words, if trying to defend against a future gain-of-function attack, if you could do a better defense by studying it yourself, how much value would that have? Hard to calculate, right? You couldn't really calculate that. But likewise, what are the risks that in studying it you create the very problem you were trying to avoid? Again, I don't think you could calculate it. Which of those risks is bigger? Do you know? I'll bet you know which one scares you. And I'll bet that's what you would make your decision on because we don't have the data. So you're going to end up making the decision based on what scares you the most.
So what are you most afraid of? An intentional biological or accidentally creating a biological attack in trying to defend it? Which one of those scares you the most? I don't know. They both sound pretty bad to me. So if Fauci with his body of knowledge about this stuff concluded that the world was safer studying it than not studying it, I'm not going to tell you he was wrong. He might have been. And I'm not going to tell you that Rand Paul is wrong that under no circumstances should you get near this stuff. I don't know that that's the right decision. I feel like that's a fear opinion. In other words, if you're more afraid of the accidental release than you are of a foe intentionally releasing it, then you would go one way. And if your fear of the other thing was greater, you go the other way. But you don't have data. You don't have any way to compare those risks. There's nothing to compare. You've just been guessing which one is worse.
So I'm not going to defend Fauci. I'm just going to say that there's a difference of opinion on the risk. That's all we know. That's all we know. Difference of opinion.
All right, I'm a big fan of Rand Paul, so I do love that he's pushing this because no matter what the real answer is, the public needs to know. No matter what the real answer is, the public needs to know. So this is good work by Rand Paul. And again, like I've said a million times, there are only like four productive members of Congress. It's all the same people all the time, and Rand is one of them.
All right, Martin Kulldorff did a little analysis comparing the Israeli and versus the CDC studies to see if normal immunity is better than vaccination. I gotta run, but the bottom line is this: that Israel says normal immunity is stronger than vaccination. CDC says vaccination is stronger than immunity. CDC did their math wrong. CDC did the math wrong. That's it. I don't even need to add to anything, do I? The CDC did the math wrong. Now when I say that, I mean the statistical approach they used was apparently suboptimal. But two opposite opinions using the same data. Boom. That's everything you need to know.
And I am done for today. Gotta rock. See you later.
wow what a day incredible day coming up and it's starting with the simultaneous sip yeah all of you smart and sexy people the people who watch this live stream you know who you are well you're sexier and smarter than usual today and this one's going to be lit because the news is very generous today the news has served up some delicious topics and we're going to dive into them but first to make this extra extra special turbo special extreme special all you need is a copper margaret glass of tanker chelsea stein the canteen jugger 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 hit of the day the thing that makes everything better it's called the simultaneous sip it happens now go is it did somebody just give me vitamin d and and regeneron monoclonal antibodies because i feel like my antibodies are on fire let's talk about the news there's a new mayor in new york city eric adams um who is no relation to me i know that's the first question you know he's adam simon adams he identifies as black i identify as black but there that's a coincidence there is no familiar connection that i know of there are some cousins i've never met but i don't think he's one of them anyway eric adams new mayor of new york city just did a really awesome thing talk about uh you know being new on the job and starting strong here was his tweet he says he's going to take his first three paychecks in bitcoin because he wants to turn new york city into the cryptocurrency you know center of the world that's really good now forget about the idea of turning new york city into a cryptocurrency center i don't know if that's good or not but the fact that he promoted it this way is a really really strong game so i didn't follow him too much so i suppose uh i suppose there's a reason he won it looks like he's good at this stuff so good job eric adams with your getting attention for your paychecks being in bitcoin how many of you have watched tucker carlson's special called patriot purge anybody anybody so i started watching it and i've watched i don't know half of the first third of it it's in three parts and i'm already blown away because i thought i knew you know i've been following the story sort of like everybody else but it's interesting how things uh change from the original story and maybe you don't notice the change because it might be part of part of something changed and you don't realize how much it altered the original but i'll tell you the first third is enough for me to recommend it no the first half of the first third is already absolutely i recommend it for context you want to see some good context about what the media and everybody else is doing to you it's really good now i don't know if it gets crazy later than maybe something in it that i don't like at some point maybe i don't know but uh at the moment highly recommended um do you remember me telling you that um and i tweeted it often that the reason that the united states didn't have rapid tests was almost certainly because of corruption does anybody remember me saying that that there had to be corruption because the government was not only not not approving rapid tests and they were certainly available to approve they were they were not only not approving them but they weren't explaining why right they weren't explaining why and now here's something we learned matt stoller did some reporting and the summary of it is that the the fda person in charge of recommending which rapid tests are used recommended only abbot labs which is where he used to work that's right the person who decides what company's going to get recommended for approval uh in the fda recommended only abbott labs at first initially and then when other companies came in and say hey how about us there were there was bureaucratic slowness a slowness which would be hard to explain during a pandemic until you learned that the person who may be central to the story had one stronger connection to one company than to the other companies the one he had the strongest connection to reportedly now this is the story he approached abbott labs and they weren't even in the business of making rapid tests and it looks like this individual said hey why don't you make some rapid tests and i'm sure he told them that he was central to the approval process and so abbott made some tests and they had a monopoly on the market for months and months and months during a time when they could pretty much charge what they wanted because they didn't have competition other companies also tried to get approved but got slowed down not because their technology was necessarily bad but they needed to present more data needed to fill out the forms better a little bit of bureaucratic slowness so here's my bottom line on this have i ever told you that the follow the money is not only predictive but also tell you what happened in the past even when it's not the real reason that's a key point you the follow the money will take you to the truth even when it looks like the money had nothing to do with it so about if you dug into the story and talk to the individual involved i don't know this but i'll bet you he'd have some kind of explanation like this i was only aware of one company that could ramp up this quickly and the other companies were not as capable and so they didn't get approved as quickly could be the whole story it could be that his uh strong connection to abbott labs caused more of them to be produced than would have otherwise totally possible totally possible so until you hear his side of the story don't assume that anything unethical or illegal or sketchy happened but every other the other european countries seem to get this done do you think that the united states is less capable than our european uh allies and friends um i don't know doesn't seem like it seems like on everything else we were comparable or better a lot of stuff so uh you always have to hear the other side of this but follow the money took you to exactly what i told you it would take you to am i right i told you is corruption which means follow the money i mean this is another way to say follow the money right corruption if you follow that if you follow the money you would go directly to the person who approves them and you would directly find these connected to the one with the one company that got approved and because the other ones didn't get approved we didn't have enough and there was no competition to lower the price i predicted it would look exactly the way it looks which is not to say any crimes were committed or that even anything wrong was done don't know you have to wait till the other side of the story but this was very predictable even if the money wasn't the reason until you see how many times follow the money works even when the person acting maybe was not influenced by that directly people still tend to talk themselves into the path where they make money but it might be it might happen somewhat legitimately in the sense that uh perhaps he talked himself into it being exactly the right thing to do so we don't we need to know more about this but i would rank this as maybe my best prediction would it would anybody would anybody disagree name anybody else who a year ago was telling you it had to be corruption name anybody else who said that in public you know somebody who talks about this stuff but i think i'm the only one i identify this a year in advance and to me it was obvious from the start but again we have to hear the other side before we make any allegations here's some interesting news the university of washington is working on contact lenses that would allow you to see things projected onto them so you can see directions and things in your contact lens that nobody else could see now it was always going to go that way wasn't it wasn't it you knew this someday there would be stuff in your contact lens it feels like that's inevitable but our march toward full cyborg status is well underway uh i would say that's not going to happen anytime soon but it's going to happen contact lenses that are little computer computer screens the us economy added over half a million jobs and unemployment rate fell to 4.6 percent let me tell you everything you need to know about economics you ready here's everything you need to know about economics supply and demand number two if unemployment looks good everything else is probably pretty good too now there could be exceptions but generally speaking if your employment rate is going in the right direction or it's already low things are going to work out now we have an unusual situation with massive debt and pandemics and stuff so there could be some you know black swan situation going on here but if you see the unemployment rate at 4.6 when there's inflation it's still still like a little higher than you want it right but we also have a little more inflation than we want so unemployment works to lower inflation because there'll be more employ more more people to to offer themselves for the jobs so this is a really really healthy number good news doesn't mean we're out of the woods but that's the real good news well in other news the pandemic is over sort of almost kind of and it goes like this uh the uk has been is the first country to approve an anti-viral pill so a pill that you would take once you suspected you had coveted symptoms and it would directly work on against the virus and the uk says it's uh could be a game changer so they think it's a big big deal and this is developed by merck and ridgeback biotherapeutics here's why i think this is a bigger deal than you do and you probably think it's a pretty big deal you know our big controversy about vaccination or no vaccination it's like all we want to talk about and you know that the pharma companies owned the news you knew that right big pharma is the big advertiser for the news so the news is not going to run stories that are directly horrible to their biggest advertisers you know human nature follow the money it's just not going to happen you know they'd have to do it if other people were reporting it but you know the but you're not going to see one of the major news companies break a story about a pharma company i don't think that's ever going to happen not if they if they also advertise so here's what's important until until we get these approved these uh tablets that you can take till we get them what does the pharma industry in this country have to sell well in this country they can sell you some monoclonal antibodies and they they'll they're they're making them as fast as we're using them i think so there's that but also vaccinations of course so vaccinations are the primary uh money competitor to therapeutics right vaccines are the competition for therapeutics they're not the same and i'm not recommending you do one or the other there's no recommendation here i'm just saying they're direct financial competitors uh even though they do different things so until now we never had pharma versus pharma am i right we never had pharma versus pharma so now we've got big pharma merck that'll have a competition to vaccinations what do you expect to happen next follow the money you had not much competition for vaccinations and the news was owned and the government was owned by the pharma what messages would you expect to come out of that situation vaccines are safe everybody should get one and you better get a booster too now how predictable would that be if you knew that big pharma had infinite money they controlled the news and they controlled the government what would you expect to come out of that exactly that right now again remember the rule is not that if you follow the money you find a crime often that's true but that's not what i'm saying i'm saying if you follow the money even if people say they were ignoring the money and even if it looks like they were you still end up in the same place you end up in the same place so how will the message change now that it's pharma versus pharma because it used to be pharma versus the government versus the news and there was no competition pharma could put out whatever message it wanted because the news would just parrot it and the government was owned obviously i'm using hyperbole to make the story here right now what happens when it becomes pharma versus pharma therapeutics versus vaccines prediction time follow the money what's going to happen suddenly you should expect bad news about vaccines see what i'm saying the moment the moment probably the same day that this drug is approved in the united states the media is going to turn on vaccinations not totally not totally because some of them still get their money from that source but there may be enough entities that get their money from merck you're going to start seeing some stories about side effects and long-term risk and all that stuff so follow the money predicts that everything you've heard about vaccinations being good will start to morph into well maybe there's more risk than we thought here watch it watch that happen the shift is coming and you'll be able to watch it in real time so biden said the reports of giving maybe settling some legal disputes with immigrants who were separated at the border he said it's garbage that they're going to get 450 000 per person i take biden's description of this as correct meaning that the part he was saying is garbage is the 450 000 part he wasn't saying and he clarified this he wasn't saying that they're not that no settlement will happen he's just saying that that number is crazy who knows what the number will be um and some have said that separations from the family are like him to torture psychologically and the people will be damaged but here's some context i need to ask correct me if i'm wrong each of these people got separated in the context of a definite crime being committed it's an immigration crime not a violent crime but am i right that all the separations happened in the context of people who definitely had committed a crime because they were here illegally now you could argue it shouldn't be a crime or whatever but current laws all of them were in criminal status correct correct what do we do with american citizens when they commit crimes do we send the whole family to jail to keep them together do we absolve the person who's guilty and say ah we'd love to send you to jail but there's no way we could stop separating you from your family so i guess we won't prosecute you because we don't want to separate you from your family has anybody even thought to add the context that we routinely separate children from parents it's called the legal system we do it all the time do you know who mr and mrs rittenhouse don't get to spend much time with their son because he's currently incarcerated for what looks like not even a crime on the surface it looks like not even a crime yes the most normal thing we do in this country is separate children from their parents i don't now you could tell me that this is different but i'm not sure you can you could convince me it's different enough that we should look at it so differently by the way i'm not in favor of separating kids from their parents i'm just saying we should keep things in context here's what i love about this story it feels like democrats have stopped trying to win scott you don't follow the written house case yeah i do it's just that there's nothing there the written count the ridden house case is this show us the evidence that it was in self-defense here's nothing okay well do you have anything else to make your case that it wasn't just pure self-defense the the way it looks exactly like on the video well i got this okay that's nothing that's pretty much the whole story if anybody tells if anybody finds anything they would suggest written house should be going to jail let me know because i don't think they found it yet we'll see anyway what i love about this story is it's the democrats aren't even trying anymore imagine any level of settlement so let's say it's not 450 000.
let's say today talk it all the way down to five thousand dollars possible right let's say they talk it all the way down from 450 000 per person to 5 000 per person and then they settle for that democrats still lose the election right they still lose in 2022 because there's no way you can sell this at any dollar amount because it's the principle it's the principal thing it's not the 450 000 that got our attention but it doesn't matter what the dollar amount is you don't pay your criminals stop paying criminals do you know what happens when you pay people for being criminals you get more of it so once again the democrats prove that they do not understand human motivation whatsoever uh but i love this story because they're just basically it's like it's alec baldwin except government basically the democrats have gone full alec baldwin it's like ah yeah i don't need to check this gun it's already been checked by that woman with blue hair who's never handled the gun before so i'm fine all right here's the strangest thing happened there is a gigantic blockbuster story probably one of the biggest stories of the year and it's not on cnn at least not on their website and it's not on fox news at least not on their website now unless that's changed in the last few minutes that one of the biggest stories by far by far one of the biggest stories we've seen all year is not being covered by the two major medias yeah the durham indictments but glenn greenwald is on it and uh um see chuck was a chuck ross and uh joel pollock is on it so you've seen a lot of a lot of very credible people on it but not seeing that in not fox news yet what's going on there now remember my my fake news filter if one of the two either fox news or siena says it didn't happen it didn't happen that you know of course is not 100 accurate but that that's a good rule to follow if one of them says it didn't happen it didn't happen but neither fox news nor cnn are reporting it didn't happen they're just not talking about it what's going on joel says fox covered it i assume you mean on the air but look at the website find it on the website that's all i'm saying find it on the website i'm pretty sure the website gets more traffic than the on the air am i wrong and was it the opinion people who covered it or the news people can somebody answer me that was only an opinion person who covered it because i think i saw jessie waters cover it last night he was filling in for tucker carlson tucker had it but really that's an opinion show dana pre-nude just had uh jonathan turley oh he would be a great guest anyway so you you probably know this story by now which is if the indictment is telling us what we think it's telling us there is a highla well a well-known at least within political circles there's a democrat who is not only well-placed in the democratic party you know somebody who's an activist but also had extreme connections to putin and russia and he's the source of the steel doc dossier at least i don't know some important parts of it so there's an american democrat who allegedly lied to a russian american who was born in russian and then the steel steel talked to the russian then i think the russian lied about you know where he got his information and then the next thing you know there's a steel dock the steele dossier is the biggest news you've got the whole russia collusion but here's the punch line there was russian collusion apparently and it was on the clinton side looks like if the durham report is you know if the indictments turn out to you know be factually grounded it looks a lot like um an actual coup like an actual literal coup and it looks like hillary is behind it now there's no smoking gun in hillary's hand but it's hard to imagine she didn't know about it if you know what i mean so certainly there are democrats who tried to overthrow the government with the fake news that actually happened in our in our lifetime at least one democrat probably more literally tried to overthrow the government with fake news and it almost worked he almost got trump impeached on fake charges in which the democrats were actually guilty now do you remember what i told you about um narcissism and democrats and i told you that i'm not sure that democrats are actually politically oriented they're just narcissists and part of the checklist to know whether you're a narcissist is a thing called projection which is you blame the other side for the exact crime you're doing now you've heard some of you have heard me saying that's not a thing yeah and i said it a lot i said there's no such thing as projection you know that that's not happening boy is that a thing let me tell you i've never been more wrong about something until you see it you can't believe it because it's so it well it's just hard to believe when you see it that somebody would actually be murdering somebody and accusing you of murder while they're murdering you think well that can't that can't actually be happening can it oh yes it does and i i can i can confirm with 100 certainty it's a thing i don't think it's a thing as often as people use it so i will i'll give myself you know a little wiggle room the way it's used on twitter is just you know an insult and it's not a diagnosis so i'd say you know 90 of it is probably just people arguing on twitter but there's a real thing and the democrats consistently seem to be racist and accuse republicans of being racist they consistently uh you know they that they do whatever is the worst thing you can do in this case trying to overthrow the government by colluding with russia literally allegedly and then blaming trump for it it's really mind-boggling isn't it it's mind-boggling exactly what q said all along somebody says okay um but read joel uh joel pollock's right up in breitbart because that'll give you some good background well um since we're talking about fake news this is one of the biggest stories for the last several years you know the russia collusion hoax and now we know it's just complete complete hoax so that's what we know about the news so the major media that we know this for sure the major media just um for years covered a story exactly the opposite of the truth exactly the opposite of truth now that's your context that the news can be complete bs here's some more context i talk about this often the gel man amnesia effect which is that if you're an expert in a specific field and you see a news story about that you know all the problems with oh the journalists got everything wrong i'm an expert i know but everybody else reading it doesn't know they think well probably got that right but as soon as you read something that you're not an expert on you start believing it oh well that's probably right but the experts don't think so now this also works with celebrities let me tell you i know this first hand uh reporting on celebrities and how many times have you seen this about me how many times have you seen a news report usually i tweet them in which somebody's described me incorrectly or my opinion incorrectly you've all seen it right i'm pretty sure every one of you has seen a fake news article about me and how many times have i been falsely accused in my personal life of heinous crimes pretty often pretty often it's it's a celebrity problem you get accused of of usually sex crimes i've talked about someone you know the the worst offender is somebody i never met some somebody with mental health issues who lives in canada and it's pretty sure i'm flying up to canada and ransacking her computer and sexually molesting her on a regular basis and she calls the people i work with to tell in great detail about all the crimes i did in canada while i was not in canada now if you're if you're a normie and you're not famous you say to yourself that sounds like maybe there's something wrong with you scott you seem to get a suspiciously large number of false accusations with all of that smoke there's got to be a little fire there nope nope if i could teach you one thing it says celebrity news typically is just wrong and just completely wrong there's no there's no there's no fire there there's just smoke and this brings me to the dave portnoy hit piece now if you know dave portnoy he's uh i guess he's founder of bar stool right it's a big site he's made a lot of money he's rich he's famous he's appears on tucker carlson's show does lots of does lots of stuff that gets him with some attention but uh a business insider spent eight months trying to find some dirt on him and the only thing they could find was sketchy stuff about his sex life i don't think somebody says scott you are not a celebrity seriously okay um so the best i could find is some women who had these vague accusations about i don't know rough consensual sex what that's it they had consensual sex that may have involved some like consensual choking or something which by the way if you don't know this is the number one requested thing by women that you women won't know this is necessarily true or maybe you do but in the comments can the men hear confirm at least the single men single men who are who have been single recently so i don't know what it was like 20 years ago but if you've been single recently can can you confirm for me that one of the most frequently requested things by women is to be rough with me including choking specifically actually all right i'm saying lots of yeses yes it is confirmed confirmed so it doesn't matter how many people say no it doesn't matter if you've never seen it look at all the yeses right so basically dave portnoy is a victim of a hit piece in which the entire point of it is his sex life is a lot like normal that's it that was the hit piece his sex life looks pretty normal but some women report some bad reactions to it when they were pressed here's the thing let me give you a uh my life experience percentages if a person is non-famous non-famous this is the key word non-famous and you hear a credible person say that they committed that let's say a sex crime what what do you think are the odds it will be true forget about you don't know anything about you only know it's a it's a non-famous person and you know that a credible person made an accusation how often in your experience will the credible accusation actually be true what percentage give me a percentage zero to 100 percent john says 10 10 i see more 10 give me give me some more remember i'm talking about non-famous people 60 50 fifty seeing twenties um here's i'll give you my personal estimate more like fifty to seventy five because it takes a lot to make an accusation like that the accuser has to take some big risk to make an accusation so i don't think it's 10 i think it's probably 50 to 75 percent and that still leaves a lot a lot of false accusations but i would say if you were gonna if you were first presented with the accusation don't assume it's true but you could put some statistics on it and say yeah this person's taking a pretty big risk for an unknown person you know there's not doesn't seem to be anything in it for him 50 to 75 all right now turn around there's a sex accusation against a famous person especially one in politics and you know dave arguably dave pornoy is involved in political speech what are the odds that a famous person's sex accusations turn out to be true what do you think do you think it's still 50 50 75 in my experience it's closer to zero yeah it's closer to zero might be five ten percent you could give it that but if the only thing you knew is what's in the news about dave portnoy you should play the odds play the odds it's closer to a 90 chance this that the odds are bs if he were not famous i would reverse it if you were not famous i would reverse it now again this is not based on science this is based on life experience as someone who gets accused pretty much every year of a horrible crime i don't think i've gone a full year without being accused of something that would put me in jail for 20 years i mean it's just a and ask other celebrities male celebrities ask other male celebrities how many times have been falsely accused of sex crimes it would be almost every one i think i think it would be almost everyone all right there's also a tim poole story today tim poole and this is uh fake news mixed in with the real news i'll sort it out for you so tim poole as most of you know independent journalist very successful um very prominent on on the internet etc and uh he has had lots of content in the past about vaccinations pro and con and ivormectin pro and con and so he gets a really bad case of coven and apparently reportedly he's unvaccinated i don't know if that's confirmed but that's the story he's he's unvaccinated and had a really tough time with it it was it was bad he then he talked to joe rogan and joe rogan hooked him up with a doctor uh even offered to pay uh he hooked him up with a doctor who gave him the you know the full cocktail of uh therapeutics so he got monoclonal antibodies he got ivermectin just in case um it's a vitamin d drip and some other stuff right oh somebody says he's vaccinated oh so that's the new information is that new because the initial reporting oh interesting all right i just got fact checked in real time it was 10 to 12 days of a chess gold interesting tim found the doctor by himself all right this is perfect what was it what was my last story my last story is that the news when it talks about famous people is usually wrong right it does it's not just about sex stories but stories about famous people are usually wrong and and look at this one the i mean this one was it was fresh and you could already see that the vaccination status was wrong and how he found the doctor was wrong apparently reportedly i don't know yet uh somebody says he tweeted that he wouldn't take it but somebody's saying that it's confirmed he took it i guess we don't know either way whether he took it or not it doesn't change my take on this which was number one uh reportedly when he first went to urgent care center they wouldn't give him anything so apparently if you just go and say i've got covent symptoms they don't give you nothing i don't know how bad it has to be before you can get some therapeutics but apparently he had to go and like hunt it down himself is our health care system this bad that we don't we don't give people the full cocktail the minute they say that they have symptoms apparently so apparently it's not bad but uh here's the fake news part of it um tim poo was framed as a vaccination denier which he isn't my understanding can i get a confirmation on that give me a fact check give me a fact check that's that's accurate right he's not a vaccination denier whether or not he's vaccinated is a separate question because i believe his take is you should talk to your doctor and if he talked to his doctor whichever whichever way he went then he did exactly what he says you should do talk to your doctor and and that's everybody's advice that's mainstream medical advice talk to your doctor right so somehow tim poole has been framed because it makes a better narrative anti-vaxxer gets a bad case and wishes he was vaccinated you know they add that like like as if he's thinking that so the tim poole piece is mostly some combination of bad framing or fake news depending on your point of view and of course they're going to go after him for being pro-ivormectin which also didn't happen can you confirm this he's being painted as someone who is pro-ivormectin and in fact took it but correct me if i'm wrong he didn't say you should take ivor beckham did he i think he said do what your doctor tells you and apparently his doctor was okay with the arthropectin so there we may hear the story is different by tomorrow i wouldn't be surprised anyway my only point about that is that uh celebrity news is almost always wrong yesterday i posted a picture of myself instead of shirtless which you're used to on the internet uh with a really good shirt i was wearing and i was saying this why is it that i have this one shirt that is great material feels good never wrinkles looks great feels great never wrinkles so i've got one shirt that that's like that and so and so i yes i know my my footwear game is weak we'll talk about that and so i asked the internet why is it that only two percent of shirts can do what this shirt could do we've been making shirts in civilization for a long long time are you telling me that this one sure company the only one the only one figured out how to make a shirt that doesn't wrinkle and feels good and looks good only one are you freaking kidding what is going on so um everybody asks me who makes that shirt so i'll tell you it's a tesso elba supima cotton polyester blend so it's cotton and polyester is some kind of special cotton called supima and the the brand is tasso elba t-a-s-s-o e-l-b-a now caution caution i don't know that they have any other shirts that are that good so hear me carefully the other problem is even when a company can make a great shirt they will stop making the gray shirt and make bad ones so as i was tweeting on this you might not be surprised that the company untuck it immediately contacted me you have you all seen the commercials for untuck it they're dress shirts but they're designed so they don't they don't hang down too long and you can just wear them untucked now i own quite a number of untucked products and the reason i own quite a number of them is that the first untucked shirt i bought was awesome it was awesome it didn't wrinkle looked great felt great it was great it wasn't as soft as this toso elba thing is but it was a solid shirt and so i did what anybody would do if they get such a good experience i bought a bunch more here's the thing the other shirts that i bought were made of different material in a different way they had this one perfect shirt and i would have bought 100 of them over my lifetime if they could just make that one shirt just make it a different color maybe yeah add a little you know maybe a tweak or a feature but but just keep making that shirt but the way companies work is they they have to have lots of product because it gives them bigger exposure makes them seem more serious et cetera so you have to add add to yourself space to take away other people's shelf space in part and i tried all the other shirts and maybe one of them was pretty good and the others were just different material different shirts they all have the same fit so that part's good but there's i don't understand why people can't make a shirt every single time do you know how often a shirt making company should be able to make a great shirt every time did nobody put that shirt on before they took it to mass production just put it on see how it fits it can't be that much of a mystery likewise i tried forever to find a good t-shirt and i think this one is uh clean fresh teas or whatever it is they they advertise on the internet so there was a company that said hey every t-shirt in the world is terrible why don't we make one that isn't how hard can it be it turns out it wasn't hard it was pretty easy to make a t-shirt that wasn't terrible and so they made them and apparently they're doing well so one tuck is pretty good but i would say i still don't understand whether just make all their shirts like the good the best one all right that was a detour you didn't care about um i saw so a tweet from uh somebody named comrade bridget a woman who said more and more left women so women on the left are standing up for themselves and refusing to date men who watch porn so apparently this is sort of a movement women on the left are refusing to date men who watch porn what would be the possible unintended side effects if this became a thing a bigger thing unintended side effects well civilization would be fathered entirely from that point on by men who have low sex drive and or are huge liars so we would be breeding selectively men with low sex drive probably low testosterone and uh or possibly gigantic liars who say that they don't do that i've told this story before there was a woman i knew in my 20s and she had a technique for finding for filtering new dates to find out if they were good or bad people on the first date before they even got to know each other she would just look at him and say do you masturbate on the first date she would just like throw that in the conversation totally out of nowhere just throw it in and what did most men say well to their credit most men said well yeah yeah yeah i do um but she told me there was one guy who said he didn't masturbate because he doesn't need to he doesn't masturbate because he doesn't need to what do you think she did with that guy she said well i found my first liar that was his last date such an obvious lie but the the woman who tweeted this uh whose name is um brigid uh she describes herself as a radical feminist uh marxist and revolutionary no not radical she describes herself as a marxist and revolutionary feminist um i've got another another possible explanation of what's going on here big picture sort of thing before there was porn there were men and women of various uh let's say sexable characteristics some very sexy and you'd like to get with them some very not sexy and you didn't want to get with them very much but it's all you had people right just people or your imagination and people are better than your imagination even if your imagination is pretty good mine's pretty good people are still better so if you had a choice you take a person even maybe not somebody who's a perfect you know sexual monster you maybe maybe you'd lower your sights a little bit then comes porn which is not only made better every year but more targeted to your exact exact kink and if you can target some target somebody's exact gank it's it's got like a 10x power to it compared to generic stuff that's made for everybody and once you get to that level of porn power the women on the one side of the distribution curb the the ones who are let's say not killing it with the the looks and the sex appeal they have gone below the level which makes them worthwhile for dating because you might prefer a really hot woman over porn if you're a man but you no longer prefer a not hot woman over porn men back me up on this no matter what you think of porn still better than some people right it's not better than somebody you really you know you really connect with but it's better than a lot of people and porn's getting better while people are getting worse i would argue that being a marxist revolutionary feminist is maybe one problem that makes uh porn look more attractive to men just putting that out there all right uh this was actually a tim pool tweet i saw coincidentally black lives matter is now more unpopular than popular so it crossed over so remember uh way back in the charlottesville rally and then black black lives matter became a big thing and then there were a bunch of high-profile police actions in which black people were killed and then black lives matter was more and more popular well just about the time they didn't need them anymore whoever they is their popularity sank because the media is no longer propping them up so the media has sort of withdrawn their support if you will and then they've been less active do you believe that black lives matter was ever a organic movement was it organic or was there some force that was funding them and moving them because it's kind of weird that the thing they were trying to fix didn't get fixed and yet their movement went away do you remember occupy wall street occupy wall street big old thing you know big thing and then it went away why did occupy wall street go away is it because uh income inequality got fixed no nothing happened they just went away why did antifa and bml who were so big under trump why did they just sort of fade away a little bit well i think they don't need them anymore i think that whoever is whoever is creating the fake news on the left just doesn't need them anymore by the way if you've never met somebody who creates fake news for a living you really need to it'll change everything about how you see the world there's a large volume of the fake news that i think goes through the same people so i think a lot of what you see on the left and the right probably gets filtered through a fairly small number of people before you you before you see it all right the build back better bill is so complicated that apparently somebody only just found out there's tax breaks for the news business in there no reason they're just good tax breaks in the in the proposed bill for the uh the press and media companies do you know why they deserve tax breaks i don't no reason given the obvious reason is that the democrats work with this industry and they're just scratching each other's backs all right um here's my take on that wherever things are complicated that's where fraud is hiding so anything complicated is is riddled with fraud so the the financial advice business is real complicated oh you could get this financial vehicle or this one riddled with fraud because it's complicated and people can't understand it on their on their own everything everything that's complicated is riddled with fraud because that's where it can hide fraud can't hide in simple situations because it would just be obvious oh that's obvious fraud but wherever there's complexity there's always fraud it's just guaranteed so we have congress writing these hugely complicated bills with all kinds of topics and legalese and everything and we're expected to support them or not or tell our congress people to support them or not and even congress doesn't read it it's too complicated here's what i would do if i were president i would uh reject every bill that wasn't written in a way the public could understand it pretty popular right talking about a populist opinion i will reject every bill no matter what the topic if the public can't understand it now the public might not need to know every detail of it but at least there should be a summary with a little bit of a pro and con says oh this would do this and here's why let's take the media tax breaks this would give tax breaks to these certain media companies here's the argument for why and then here's the argument against yeah you'd vote for me of course if i ran for uh ran for office i would be destroyed by the media so it's a bad bet but uh yeah i'd be i'd be an excellent president in some ways probably bad in a lot of other ways so yeah if you can't understand the bill you have to you have to oppose it the san francisco chronicle had an opinion piece now keep in mind this is san francisco all right so consider the source and it's an opinion piece and says our current requirements and punitive uh actions talking about the pandemic mandates and stuff suggests that many of california's health officials may be going off gut feel or worse ideology rather than a calculable risk methodology so the san francisco chronicle in the heart of san francisco is saying um i think maybe our our pandemic requirements are not based on science that's a shift it's a zeitgeist shift all right um uh there's more fouchy versus rand paul i saw a video that's new right is is that video i saw is rand paul grilling fouchy again or yesterday or something i think so right it's new okay it's new and in it we see exactly what i told you was the case uh who else told you this before i did did i tell you that the argument between fouchy and rand paul was really a definitional one did i not tell you that fauci was just using a different definition of gain a function than rand paul was and that that's what it was well rand paul basically just took that approach and just said it looks like you just changed the definition so that you wouldn't look so bad and i think that's exactly what happened i mean i don't know but it does look like they changed the definition of gain of function on the website to hide the fact that it had been a larger a larger definition than they narrowed it now i'm not the one who's going to say that fauci did anything wrong in terms of funding gain a function i don't feel like i can make that call with what i know because it comes down to this it comes down to this was the type of gain of function more potential benefit than risk or more risk than benefit in other words if trying to defend against a future gain of function attack if you could do a better defense by studying yourself how much value would that have hard to calculate right you couldn't really calculate that but likewise what are the risks that in studying it you create the very problem you were trying to avoid again i don't think you could calculate it which of those risks is bigger do you know i'll bet you know which one scares you but and i'll bet that's what you would make your decision on because we don't have the data so you're going to end up making the decision based on what scares you the most so what are you most afraid of an intentional biological or accidentally creating a biological attack in trying to defend it which one of those scares you the most i don't know they both sound pretty bad to me so if fouchy with his body of knowledge about this stuff concluded that the world was safer studying it than not studying it i'm not going to tell you he was wrong he might have been and i'm not going to tell you that rand paul is wrong that under no circumstances should you get near this stuff i don't know that that's the right decision i feel like that's a fear a fear opinion in other words if you're more afraid of the accidental release than you are of a foe intentionally releasing it then you would go one way and if your fear of the other thing was greater you go the other way but you don't have data you don't have any way to compare those risks there's there's nothing to compare you've just been guessing which one is worse so i'm not going to defend fauci i'm just going to say that there's a difference of opinion on the risk that's all we know that's all we know difference of opinion all right i'm a big fan of rand paul so i i do love that he's pushing this because no matter what the real answer is the public needs to know no matter what the real answer is the public needs to know so this is good work by rand paul and again like i've said a million times there are only like four productive members of congress it's all the same people all the time and rand is one of them um all right martin koldorf did a little analysis comparing the israeli and versus the cdc studies uh to see if the uh normal immunity is better than vaccination i gotta i gotta run but the bottom line is this that there israel says normal normal immunity is stronger than vaccination cdc says vaccination is stronger than immunity cdc did their math wrong cdc did the math wrong that's i don't even need to add to anything that do i the cdc did the math wrong now when i say that i mean the statistical approach they used was apparently sub-optimal but two opposite opposite opinions using the same data boom that's everything you need to know and i am done for today gotta rock see you later
[Music]
wow
what a day
incredible day coming up and it's
starting with the simultaneous sip
yeah all of you smart and sexy people
the people who watch this live stream
you know who you are
well you're sexier and smarter than
usual today
and
this one's going to be lit because the
news is very
generous today
the news has served up some delicious
topics and we're going to dive into them
but first to make this extra extra
special turbo special extreme
special
all you need is a copper margaret glass
of tanker chelsea stein the canteen
jugger 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 hit of the day the thing that
makes
everything better
it's called the simultaneous sip it
happens now go
is it did somebody just give me vitamin
d and
and regeneron monoclonal antibodies
because i feel like my
antibodies are on fire
let's talk about the news
there's a new mayor in new york city
eric adams
um who
is no relation to me i know that's the
first question you know he's adam simon
adams
he identifies as black i identify as
black but there that's a coincidence
there is no familiar connection that i
know of
there are some cousins i've never met
but i don't think he's one of them
anyway eric adams new mayor of new york
city just did
a really awesome thing
talk about
uh you know being new on the job and
starting strong here was his tweet
he says he's going to take his first
three paychecks
in bitcoin
because he wants to turn new york city
into the cryptocurrency you know center
of the world
that's really good now forget about the
idea of turning new york city into a
cryptocurrency center i don't know if
that's good or not
but the fact that he promoted it this
way
is a really really strong game
so i didn't follow him too much so
i suppose uh
i suppose there's a reason he won it
looks like he's good at this stuff
so good job eric adams with your getting
attention for your paychecks being in
bitcoin
how many of you have watched tucker
carlson's special called patriot purge
anybody
anybody
so i started watching it and i've
watched i don't know half of the first
third of it it's in three parts
and i'm already blown away
because i thought i knew you know i've
been following the story sort of
like everybody else
but it's interesting how things uh
change from the original story and maybe
you don't notice the change because it
might be part of part of something
changed and you don't realize how much
it altered the original
but i'll tell you the first third
is enough for me to recommend it
no the first
half of the first third
is already absolutely i recommend it
for context you want to see some good
context about what the media and
everybody else is doing to you it's
really good now i don't know if it gets
crazy later than maybe something in it
that i don't like at some point maybe i
don't know
but
uh at the moment
highly recommended
um do you remember me telling you that
um
and i tweeted it often
that the reason that the united states
didn't have rapid tests
was almost certainly because of
corruption
does anybody remember me saying that
that there had to be corruption
because the government was not only
not not approving rapid tests
and they were certainly available to
approve they were they were not only not
approving
them but they weren't explaining why
right they weren't explaining why
and now here's something we learned matt
stoller did some reporting
and
the summary of it is that the the fda
person in charge of recommending which
rapid tests are used
recommended only abbot labs
which is where he used to work
that's right the person who decides what
company's going to get recommended for
approval
uh in the fda
recommended only abbott labs at first
initially
and then when other companies came in
and say hey how about us
there were
there was bureaucratic slowness
a slowness which would be hard to
explain during a pandemic
until you learned that the person who
may be central to the story
had one stronger connection to one
company
than to the other companies the one he
had the strongest connection to
reportedly now this is the story
he approached abbott labs and they
weren't even in the business of making
rapid tests
and it looks like
this individual said hey why don't you
make some rapid tests and
i'm sure he told them that he was
central to the approval process and so
abbott made some tests and they had a
monopoly on the market for months and
months and months
during a time when they could pretty
much charge what they wanted because
they didn't have competition
other companies also tried to get
approved but
got slowed down
not because their technology was
necessarily bad but
they needed to present more data
needed to fill out the forms better a
little bit of bureaucratic slowness
so here's my bottom line on this
have i ever told you that
the follow the money
is not only predictive but also tell you
what happened in the past
even when
it's not the real reason
that's a key point
you the follow the money will take you
to the truth
even when
it looks like the money had nothing to
do with it so about if you dug into the
story and talk to the individual
involved
i don't know this but i'll bet you he'd
have some kind of explanation like this
i was only aware of one company that
could ramp up this quickly
and the other companies were not as
capable and so they didn't get approved
as quickly
could be the whole story it could be
that his uh strong connection to abbott
labs
caused more of them to be produced than
would have otherwise
totally possible
totally possible
so until you hear his side of the story
don't assume that anything
unethical or illegal or sketchy happened
but
every other the other european countries
seem to get this done
do you think that the united states is
less capable
than our european
uh allies and friends
um
i don't know doesn't seem like it seems
like on everything else we were
comparable or better a lot of stuff
so
uh you always have to hear the other
side of this but follow the money took
you to exactly what i told you it would
take you to
am i right
i told you is corruption
which means follow the money i mean this
is another way to say follow the money
right corruption
if you follow that if you follow the
money you would go directly to the
person who approves them and you would
directly find these connected to the one
with the one company that got approved
and because the other ones didn't get
approved we didn't have enough and there
was no competition to lower the price
i predicted it would look exactly the
way it looks which is not to say any
crimes were committed or that even
anything wrong was done don't know you
have to wait till the other side of the
story but this was very predictable
even if
the money wasn't the reason
until you see how many times follow the
money works even when
the person acting maybe was not
influenced by that directly
people still tend to talk themselves
into the path where they make money
but it might be it might happen somewhat
legitimately in the sense that
uh
perhaps
he talked himself into it
being exactly the right thing to do
so we don't
we need to know more about this but i
would rank this as
maybe my best prediction
would it would anybody
would anybody disagree
name anybody else who a year ago
was telling you it had to be corruption
name anybody else who said that in
public
you know
somebody who talks about this stuff but
i think i'm the only one
i identify this a year in advance and to
me it was obvious from the start
but again we have to hear the other side
before we make any allegations
here's some interesting news the
university of washington is working on
contact lenses
that would allow you to see
things projected onto them so you can
see directions and things in your
contact lens
that nobody else could see
now it was always going to go that way
wasn't it
wasn't it
you knew this someday there would be
stuff in your contact lens it feels like
that's inevitable but our march toward
full cyborg status
is well underway
uh
i would say that's not going to happen
anytime soon but it's going to happen
contact lenses that are little computer
computer screens
the us economy added over half a million
jobs and
unemployment rate fell to 4.6 percent
let me tell you everything you need to
know about economics
you ready
here's everything you need to know
about economics
supply and demand
number two
if unemployment looks good everything
else is probably pretty good too
now there could be exceptions but
generally speaking if your employment
rate is going in the right direction or
it's already low
things are going to work out
now we have an unusual situation with
massive debt and pandemics and stuff so
there could be some you know black swan
situation going on here but if you see
the unemployment rate at 4.6
when there's inflation
it's still still like a little higher
than you want it right
but we also have a little more inflation
than we want
so unemployment works to lower inflation
because there'll be more employ
more more people to
to offer themselves for the jobs
so this is a really really healthy
number good news doesn't mean we're out
of the woods but that's the real good
news
well in other news the pandemic is over
sort of
almost
kind of
and it goes like this
uh the uk has been is the first country
to approve an anti-viral pill so a pill
that you would take once you suspected
you had coveted symptoms and it would
directly work on against the virus
and the uk says it's uh could be a game
changer so they think it's a big big
deal
and this is developed by merck and
ridgeback
biotherapeutics here's why i think this
is a bigger deal than you do
and you probably think it's a pretty big
deal
you know our big controversy about
vaccination or no vaccination it's like
all we want to talk about
and you know that the pharma companies
owned the news you knew that right
big pharma is the big advertiser for the
news so the news is not going to run
stories that are directly
horrible to their biggest advertisers
you know human nature follow the money
it's just not going to happen you know
they'd have to do it if other people
were reporting it but you know
the but you're not going to see one of
the major news companies break a story
about a pharma company
i don't think that's ever going to
happen not if they if they also
advertise
so
here's what's important
until
until we get these
approved
these uh
tablets that you can take till we get
them what does the pharma industry in
this country have to sell
well in this country they can sell you
some monoclonal antibodies and they
they'll
they're they're making them as fast as
we're using them i think
so there's that but also vaccinations of
course so vaccinations are the primary
uh
money competitor
to therapeutics right
vaccines are the competition
for therapeutics they're not the same
and i'm not recommending you do one or
the other there's no recommendation here
i'm just saying they're direct
financial competitors
uh even though they do different things
so
until now we never had pharma versus
pharma am i right
we never had pharma versus pharma so now
we've got big pharma merck that'll have
a competition to vaccinations what do
you expect to happen next
follow the money
you had not much competition for
vaccinations
and the news was owned
and the government was owned by the
pharma what messages would you expect to
come out of that situation
vaccines are safe
everybody should get one
and you better get a booster too
now how predictable would that be if you
knew that big pharma had infinite money
they controlled the news
and they controlled the government
what would you expect to come out of
that exactly that right now again
remember
the rule is not that if you follow the
money you find a crime
often that's true but that's not what
i'm saying i'm saying if you follow the
money even if people say they were
ignoring the money and even if it looks
like they were
you still end up in the same place
you end up in the same place
so
how will the message change now that
it's pharma versus pharma because it
used to be pharma versus the government
versus the news and there was no
competition
pharma could put out whatever message it
wanted because the news would just
parrot it and the government was owned
obviously i'm using hyperbole to make
the story here right
now what happens when it becomes pharma
versus pharma therapeutics versus
vaccines prediction time
follow the money what's going to happen
suddenly
you should expect
bad news about vaccines
see what i'm saying
the moment
the moment probably the same day
that this drug is approved in the united
states
the media is going to turn
on vaccinations not totally
not totally because some of them still
get their money from that source
but there may be enough entities that
get their money from merck
you're going to start seeing some
stories about
side effects and long-term risk and all
that stuff so follow the money predicts
that everything you've heard about
vaccinations being good
will start to morph into well maybe
there's more risk than we thought here
watch it
watch that happen the shift is coming
and you'll be able to watch it in real
time
so biden said the reports of giving
maybe settling
some legal disputes with immigrants who
were separated at the border
he said it's garbage that they're going
to get 450 000 per person
i take biden's
description of this as correct
meaning that the part he was saying is
garbage is the 450 000 part
he wasn't saying and he clarified this
he wasn't saying
that they're not that no settlement will
happen he's just saying that that number
is crazy
who knows what the number will be
um and some have said that separations
from the family are like him to torture
psychologically and the people will be
damaged
but here's some context i need to ask
correct me if i'm wrong
each of these people got separated in
the context of a
definite crime being committed
it's an immigration crime not a violent
crime
but am i right that
all the separations happened in the
context
of people who definitely had committed a
crime because they were here illegally
now you could argue it shouldn't be a
crime or whatever but
current laws
all of them were in criminal status
correct correct
what do we do with american citizens
when they commit crimes
do we send the whole family to jail to
keep them together
do we absolve the person who's guilty
and say ah
we'd love to send you to jail but
there's no way we could
stop separating you from your family
so i guess we won't prosecute you
because we don't want to separate you
from your family
has anybody even thought to add the
context that we routinely separate
children from parents it's called
the legal system
we do it all the time
do you know who
mr and mrs rittenhouse
don't get to spend much time with
their son
because he's currently incarcerated
for what looks like not even a crime
on the surface it looks like not even a
crime
yes the most normal thing we do in this
country is separate children from their
parents
i don't now you could tell me that this
is different
but i'm not sure you can you could
convince me it's different enough
that we should look at it so differently
by the way i'm not in favor of
separating kids from their parents
i'm just saying we should keep things in
context
here's what i love about this story
it feels like democrats have stopped
trying to win
scott you don't follow the written house
case yeah i do
it's just that there's nothing there
the written count the ridden house case
is this
show us the evidence that it was in
self-defense
here's nothing
okay well do you have anything else to
make your case that it wasn't just pure
self-defense the the way it looks
exactly like on the video well i got
this okay that's nothing
that's pretty much the whole story if
anybody tells if anybody finds anything
they would suggest written house should
be
going to jail let me know
because i don't think they found it yet
we'll see
anyway what i love about this story is
it's the democrats aren't even trying
anymore imagine any level of settlement
so let's say it's not 450 000. let's say
today talk it all the way down to five
thousand dollars
possible right let's say they talk it
all the way down from 450 000 per person
to 5 000 per person and then they settle
for that
democrats still lose
the election right
they still lose in 2022 because there's
no way you can sell this at any dollar
amount because it's the principle
it's the principal thing it's not the
450 000 that got our attention
but it doesn't matter what the dollar
amount is
you don't pay your criminals
stop paying criminals
do you know what happens when you pay
people
for being criminals you get more of it
so once again the democrats prove that
they do not understand human motivation
whatsoever
uh but i love this story because they're
just
basically it's like it's alec baldwin
except government
basically the democrats have gone full
alec baldwin it's like ah yeah i don't
need to check this gun it's already been
checked by that woman with blue hair
who's never handled the gun before so
i'm fine
all right
here's the strangest thing happened
there is a gigantic blockbuster story
probably one of the biggest stories of
the year
and it's not on cnn
at least not on their website
and it's not on fox news
at least not on their website
now unless that's changed in the last
few minutes
that one of the biggest stories by far
by far one of the biggest stories we've
seen all year
is not being covered by the two major
medias yeah the durham indictments
but glenn greenwald is on it and uh
um
see
chuck was a chuck ross and uh
joel pollock is on it
so you've seen a lot of a lot of very
credible
people on it
but not seeing that in not fox news yet
what's going on there
now remember my
my fake news filter
if one of the two either fox news or
siena says it didn't happen it didn't
happen
that you know of course is not 100
accurate but that that's a good rule to
follow if one of them says it didn't
happen it didn't happen
but
neither fox news nor cnn are reporting
it didn't happen they're just not
talking about it
what's going on
joel says fox covered it i assume you
mean on the air but look at the website
find it on the website that's all i'm
saying find it on the website
i'm pretty sure the website gets more
traffic than the on the air am i wrong
and was it the opinion people who
covered it or the news people
can somebody answer me that was only an
opinion person who covered it because i
think i saw jessie waters cover it last
night he was filling in for tucker
carlson
tucker had it but really that's an
opinion show
dana pre-nude just had uh jonathan
turley oh he would be a great guest
anyway so you you probably know this
story by now which is if the indictment
is telling us what we think it's telling
us
there is a highla well a well-known at
least within political circles there's a
democrat who is not only well-placed in
the democratic party you know somebody
who's an activist
but also had extreme connections to
putin and russia and he's the source of
the steel doc
dossier at least i don't know some
important parts of it
so
there's an american democrat
who allegedly
lied to a russian american who was born
in russian
and then the steel
steel talked to the russian
then i think the russian lied about you
know where he got his information
and then the next thing you know there's
a steel dock
the steele dossier is the biggest news
you've got the whole russia collusion
but here's the punch line
there was russian collusion apparently
and it was on the clinton side
looks like if the durham report is you
know
if the indictments turn out to you know
be factually grounded
it looks a lot like um an actual coup
like an actual literal coup
and it looks like hillary is behind it
now there's no smoking gun in hillary's
hand but it's hard to imagine she didn't
know about it if you know what i mean
so certainly there are democrats
who tried to overthrow the government
with the fake news
that actually happened
in our in our lifetime
at least one democrat probably more
literally tried to overthrow the
government
with fake news and it almost worked
he almost got trump impeached on fake
charges in which the democrats were
actually guilty now do you remember what
i told you about
um narcissism and democrats
and i told you that i'm not sure that
democrats are actually politically
oriented they're just narcissists
and part of the checklist to know
whether you're a narcissist is a thing
called projection
which is you blame the other side for
the exact crime you're doing
now you've heard some of you have heard
me saying that's not a thing
yeah and i said it a lot
i said there's no such thing as
projection
you know that that's not happening
boy is that a thing
let me tell you i've never been more
wrong about something
until you see it you can't believe it
because it's so
it well it's just hard to believe when
you see it that somebody would actually
be murdering somebody and accusing you
of murder while they're murdering you
think well that can't that can't
actually be happening can it
oh yes it does and i i can i can confirm
with 100 certainty it's a thing
i don't think it's a thing as often as
people
use it
so i will i'll give myself you know a
little wiggle room the way it's used on
twitter is just you know an insult and
it's not a diagnosis
so i'd say you know 90 of it is probably
just people arguing on twitter but
there's a real
thing
and the democrats consistently seem to
be racist
and accuse republicans of being racist
they consistently
uh
you know they
that they do whatever is the worst thing
you can do
in this case trying to overthrow the
government by colluding with russia
literally allegedly
and then blaming trump for it
it's really mind-boggling isn't it it's
mind-boggling
exactly what q said all along somebody
says okay
um but read joel uh joel pollock's right
up in breitbart because that'll give you
some good background
well
um since we're talking about fake news
this is one of the biggest stories for
the last several years you know the
russia collusion hoax
and now we know it's just complete
complete hoax
so that's what we know about the news
so the major media
that we know this for sure the major
media just um for years
covered a story exactly the opposite of
the truth exactly the opposite of truth
now that's your context that the news
can be complete bs
here's some more context i talk about
this often the gel man amnesia effect
which is that if you're an expert in a
specific field and you see a news story
about that
you know all the problems with oh the
journalists got everything wrong i'm an
expert i know but everybody else reading
it doesn't know they think well probably
got that right
but as soon as you read something that
you're not an expert on you start
believing it
oh well that's probably right
but the experts don't think so now this
also works with celebrities
let me tell you i know this first hand
uh
reporting on celebrities and how many
times have you seen this about me how
many times have you seen a news report
usually i tweet them in which somebody's
described me incorrectly or my opinion
incorrectly you've all seen it right
i'm pretty sure every one of you has
seen a fake news article about me
and how many times have i been falsely
accused
in my personal life
of heinous crimes
pretty often
pretty often
it's it's a celebrity problem
you get accused of of usually sex crimes
i've talked about someone you know the
the worst offender is somebody i never
met some
somebody with mental health issues who
lives in canada
and it's pretty sure i'm flying up to
canada and ransacking her computer and
sexually molesting her on a regular
basis and she calls the people i work
with to tell
in great detail
about all the crimes i did
in canada
while i was not in canada
now if you're if you're a normie and
you're not famous
you say to yourself
that sounds like maybe there's something
wrong with you scott
you seem to get a suspiciously large
number of
false accusations
with all of that smoke
there's got to be a little fire there
nope
nope
if i could teach you one thing
it says celebrity news
typically is just wrong and just
completely wrong
there's no there's no there's no fire
there there's just smoke
and
this brings me to the dave portnoy hit
piece
now if you know dave portnoy he's uh
i guess he's founder of bar stool right
it's a big site he's made a lot of money
he's rich he's famous he's appears on
tucker carlson's show does lots of
does lots of stuff that
gets him with some attention
but uh a
business insider
spent eight months trying to find some
dirt on him and the only thing they
could find
was sketchy stuff about his sex life
i don't think
somebody says scott you are not a
celebrity
seriously
okay
um so the best i could find is some
women who
had these vague accusations about i
don't know
rough consensual sex
what
that's it
they had consensual sex that may have
involved some like consensual choking or
something which by the way if you don't
know this is the number one requested
thing by women
that
you women won't know this is necessarily
true or maybe you do
but in the comments
can the men hear confirm at least the
single men single men
who are who have been single recently so
i don't know what it was like 20 years
ago but if you've been single recently
can can you confirm for me that one of
the most
frequently requested things by women
is to be rough with me
including choking specifically actually
all right i'm saying lots of yeses yes
it is confirmed confirmed so it doesn't
matter how many people say no
it doesn't matter if you've never seen
it look at all the yeses
right
so basically dave portnoy is a victim of
a hit piece in which the entire point of
it is
his sex life is a lot like normal
that's it that was the hit piece his sex
life looks pretty normal
but some women
report some bad reactions to it when
they were pressed
here's the thing let me give you a uh
my life experience percentages
if a person is non-famous
non-famous this is the key word
non-famous and you hear a credible
person say that they committed that
let's say a sex crime
what what do you think are the odds it
will be true forget about you don't know
anything about
you only know
it's a it's a non-famous person
and you know that a credible person made
an accusation
how often in your experience
will the credible
accusation actually be true what
percentage give me a percentage
zero to 100 percent
john says 10
10
i see more 10 give me give me some more
remember i'm talking about non-famous
people
60
50 fifty
seeing twenties
um here's i'll give you my personal
estimate
more like fifty to seventy five
because it takes a lot to make an
accusation like that
the accuser has to take some big risk
to make an accusation so i don't think
it's 10
i think it's probably 50 to 75 percent
and that still leaves a lot
a lot of false accusations but i would
say if you were gonna if you were first
presented with the accusation
don't assume it's true
but you could put some statistics on it
and say yeah this person's taking a
pretty big risk for an unknown person
you know there's not doesn't seem to be
anything in it for him
50 to 75 all right now turn around
there's a sex accusation against a
famous person
especially one in politics and
you know dave
arguably dave pornoy is involved in
political speech
what are the odds that a famous
person's sex accusations turn out to be
true
what do you think
do you think it's still 50 50 75
in my experience
it's closer to zero
yeah it's closer to zero might be five
ten percent you could give it that but
if the only thing you knew is what's in
the news about dave portnoy you should
play the odds
play the odds it's closer to a 90 chance
this that the odds are bs
if he were not famous i would reverse it
if you were not famous i would reverse
it now again this is not based on
science
this is based on life experience as
someone who gets accused
pretty much every year of a horrible
crime i don't think i've gone a full
year without being accused of something
that would put me in jail for 20 years
i mean it's just a and ask other
celebrities
male celebrities ask other male
celebrities how many times have been
falsely accused of sex crimes
it would be almost every one i think
i think it would be almost everyone all
right
there's also a tim poole
story today tim poole
and this is uh fake news mixed in with
the real news i'll sort it out for you
so tim poole as most of you know
independent journalist very successful
um very prominent on on the internet etc
and
uh he has had lots of content in the
past about
vaccinations pro and con and ivormectin
pro and con
and
so he gets a really bad case of coven
and apparently reportedly he's
unvaccinated i don't know if that's
confirmed but that's the story
he's he's unvaccinated and had a really
tough time with it it was it was bad he
then he talked to joe rogan and joe
rogan hooked him up with a doctor uh
even offered to pay
uh he hooked him up with a doctor who
gave him the you know the full cocktail
of uh therapeutics
so he got monoclonal antibodies he got
ivermectin just in case
um it's a vitamin d drip and some other
stuff
right
oh somebody says he's vaccinated
oh so that's the new information is that
new
because the initial reporting oh
interesting
all right i just got fact checked in
real time
it was 10 to 12 days of a chess gold
interesting
tim found the doctor by himself all
right this is perfect
what was it what was my last story
my last story is that the news
when it talks about famous people
is usually wrong
right it does it's not just about sex
stories but stories about famous people
are usually wrong
and and look at this one the i mean this
one was it was fresh
and you could already see that the
vaccination status was wrong
and how he found the doctor was wrong
apparently reportedly i don't know yet
uh somebody says he tweeted that he
wouldn't take it but somebody's saying
that it's confirmed he took it
i guess we don't know
either way whether he took it or not it
doesn't change my take on this
which was number one uh
reportedly
when he first went to urgent care center
they wouldn't give him anything
so apparently if you just go and say
i've got covent symptoms they don't give
you
nothing
i don't know how bad it has to be before
you can get some therapeutics but
apparently he had to go and like hunt it
down himself
is our health care system this bad that
we don't we don't give people the full
cocktail the minute they say that they
have symptoms apparently so apparently
it's not bad
but uh
here's the fake news part of it
um tim poo was framed as a vaccination
denier
which he isn't
my understanding can i get a
confirmation on that give me a fact
check
give me a fact check
that's that's accurate right he's not a
vaccination denier whether or not he's
vaccinated is a separate question
because i believe his take is you should
talk to your doctor
and if he talked to his doctor whichever
whichever way he went
then he did exactly what he says you
should do talk to your doctor and
and that's everybody's advice
that's mainstream medical advice talk to
your doctor
right so
somehow tim poole has been framed
because it makes a better narrative
anti-vaxxer gets a bad case and wishes
he was vaccinated you know they add that
like like as if he's thinking that
so the tim poole piece is mostly
some combination of bad framing or fake
news depending on your point of view
and of course they're going to go after
him for being pro-ivormectin which also
didn't happen
can you confirm this
he's being painted as someone who is
pro-ivormectin
and in fact took it but
correct me if i'm wrong he didn't say
you should take ivor beckham did he
i think he said do what your doctor
tells you and apparently his doctor was
okay with the arthropectin
so
there we may hear the story is different
by tomorrow i wouldn't be surprised
anyway my only point about that is that
uh celebrity news is almost always wrong
yesterday i posted a picture of myself
instead of shirtless
which you're used to on the internet
uh with a really good shirt i was
wearing and i was saying this
why is it that i have this one shirt
that is great material feels good never
wrinkles
looks great feels great never wrinkles
so i've got one shirt that that's like
that
and so
and so i yes i know my my footwear game
is weak we'll talk about that
and so i asked the internet why is it
that only two percent of shirts can do
what this shirt could do
we've been making shirts
in civilization
for a long long time are you telling me
that this one sure company the only one
the only one
figured out how to make a shirt that
doesn't wrinkle and feels good and looks
good
only one
are you freaking kidding what is going
on
so
um
everybody asks me who makes that shirt
so i'll tell you it's a tesso elba
supima cotton
polyester blend so it's cotton and
polyester is some kind of special cotton
called
supima
and the the brand is tasso elba
t-a-s-s-o
e-l-b-a now caution caution
i don't know that they have any other
shirts that are that good
so hear me carefully
the other problem is even when a company
can make a great shirt
they will stop making the gray shirt and
make bad ones
so
as i was tweeting on this
you might not be surprised that the
company untuck it
immediately contacted me
you have you all seen the commercials
for untuck it
they're dress shirts but they're
designed so they don't they don't hang
down too long and you can just wear them
untucked
now i own
quite a number of untucked products
and the reason i own quite a number of
them is that the first untucked shirt i
bought was awesome
it was awesome it didn't wrinkle
looked great felt great
it was great it wasn't as soft as this
toso elba thing is but it was a solid
shirt
and so i did what anybody would do if
they get such a good experience i bought
a bunch more
here's the thing
the other shirts that i bought
were made of different material in a
different way
they had this one perfect shirt and i
would have bought 100 of them over my
lifetime
if they could just make that one shirt
just make it a different color maybe
yeah add a little you know maybe a tweak
or a feature but but just keep making
that shirt
but the way companies work is they they
have to have lots of product because it
gives them bigger exposure makes them
seem more serious et cetera so you have
to add add to yourself space to take
away other people's shelf space in part
and
i tried all the other shirts and maybe
one of them was pretty good and the
others were just different material
different shirts they all have the same
fit so that part's good
but there's i don't understand why
people can't make a shirt every single
time do you know how often
a shirt making company
should be able to make a great shirt
every time
did nobody put that shirt on before they
took it to mass production
just put it on
see how it fits it can't be that much of
a mystery
likewise i tried forever to find a good
t-shirt
and i think this one is uh
clean fresh teas or whatever it is they
they advertise on the internet so there
was a company that said hey every
t-shirt in the world is terrible
why don't we make one that isn't how
hard can it be
it turns out it wasn't hard
it was pretty easy to make a t-shirt
that wasn't terrible and so they made
them and apparently they're doing well
so one tuck is pretty good
but i would say i still don't understand
whether just make all their shirts like
the good the best one
all right that was a detour you didn't
care about
um i saw
so a tweet from uh
somebody named comrade bridget
a woman who said more and more left
women so women on the left are standing
up for themselves and refusing to date
men who watch porn
so apparently this is sort of a movement
women on the left are refusing to date
men who watch porn
what would be the possible
unintended side effects
if this became a thing a bigger thing
unintended side effects
well
civilization would be fathered entirely
from that point on
by men who have low sex drive and or are
huge liars
so we would be breeding selectively
men with low sex drive
probably low testosterone
and uh or
possibly gigantic liars who say that
they don't do that
i've told this story before there was a
woman i knew in my 20s
and she had a technique for finding for
filtering new dates to find out if they
were good or bad people
on the first date before they even got
to know each other she would just look
at him and say do you masturbate
on the first date she would just like
throw that in the conversation totally
out of nowhere just throw it in
and
what did most men say
well
to their credit most men said well yeah
yeah yeah i do
um but she told me there was one guy who
said he didn't masturbate because he
doesn't need to
he doesn't masturbate because he doesn't
need to
[Laughter]
what do you think she did with that guy
she said well i found my first liar
that was his last date
such an obvious lie
but
the the woman who tweeted this
uh whose name is
um brigid uh she describes herself as a
radical feminist
uh marxist and revolutionary no not
radical she describes herself as a
marxist and revolutionary feminist
um i've got another
another possible explanation of what's
going on here big picture sort of thing
before there was porn
there were men and women of various uh
let's say sexable characteristics
some very sexy and you'd like to get
with them some very not sexy and you
didn't want to get with them very much
but
it's all you had
people
right just people or your imagination
and people are better than your
imagination even if your imagination is
pretty good mine's pretty good people
are still better so if you had a choice
you take a person
even maybe not somebody who's a perfect
you know sexual
monster you maybe maybe you'd lower your
sights a little bit then comes porn
which is not only made better every year
but more targeted to your exact exact
kink and if you can target some target
somebody's exact gank
it's it's got like a 10x power to it
compared to generic stuff that's made
for everybody
and once you get to that level of porn
power
the
women on the one side of the
distribution curb
the the ones who are let's say not
killing it with the the looks and the
sex appeal
they have gone below the level
which makes them worthwhile
for dating
because you might prefer a really hot
woman over porn if you're a man
but you no longer prefer
a not hot woman over porn men back me up
on this
no matter what you think of porn
still better than some people
right it's not better than somebody you
really you know you really connect with
but it's better than a lot of people
and porn's getting better while people
are getting worse i would argue that
being a marxist revolutionary feminist
[Music]
is
maybe one problem that makes uh porn
look more attractive
to men
just putting that out there
all right uh
this was actually a tim pool tweet i saw
coincidentally
black lives matter is now more unpopular
than popular so it crossed over
so remember uh
way back in the charlottesville rally
and then black black lives matter became
a big thing and then there were a bunch
of
high-profile police actions in which
black people were killed
and then black lives matter was more and
more popular
well just about the time they didn't
need them anymore
whoever they is
their popularity sank
because the media is no longer propping
them up
so the media has
sort of withdrawn their support if you
will and then they've been less active
do you believe that black lives matter
was ever a organic movement
was it organic or was there some force
that was funding them and moving them
because it's kind of weird that the
thing they were trying to fix
didn't get fixed and yet their movement
went away
do you remember occupy wall street
occupy wall street big old thing you
know big thing
and then it went away
why did occupy wall street go away
is it because uh
income inequality got fixed no nothing
happened
they just went away why did antifa and
bml who were so big
under trump why did they just sort of
fade away a little bit
well i think they don't need them
anymore i think that whoever is whoever
is creating the fake news on the left
just doesn't need them anymore
by the way
if you've never met somebody who creates
fake news for a living
you really need to
it'll change everything about how you
see the world
there's a large volume of the fake news
that i think goes through the same
people so i think a lot of what you see
on the left and the right
probably gets filtered through a fairly
small number of people before you
you
before you see it
all right
the build back better bill
is so complicated that apparently
somebody only just found out there's tax
breaks for the news business in there
no reason
they're just good tax breaks in the in
the proposed bill
for the uh the press and media companies
do you know why they deserve tax breaks
i don't no reason given
the obvious reason is that the democrats
work with this industry and they're just
scratching each other's backs
all right
um here's my take on that
wherever things are complicated that's
where fraud is hiding
so anything complicated is is riddled
with fraud
so the the financial advice business is
real complicated oh you could get this
financial vehicle or this one
riddled with fraud
because it's complicated and people
can't understand it on their on their
own
everything everything that's complicated
is riddled with fraud because that's
where it can hide
fraud can't hide in simple situations
because it would just be obvious oh
that's obvious fraud but wherever
there's complexity
there's always fraud
it's just guaranteed so we have congress
writing these hugely complicated bills
with all kinds of topics and legalese
and everything
and we're expected to support them or
not or tell our congress people to
support them or not and even congress
doesn't read it it's too complicated
here's what i would do if i were
president
i would uh reject every bill that wasn't
written in a way the public could
understand it
pretty popular right talking about a
populist opinion i will reject every
bill no matter what the topic
if the public can't understand it
now the public might not need to know
every detail of it but at least there
should be a summary
with a little bit of a pro and con
says oh this would do this and here's
why
let's take the media tax breaks
this would give tax breaks to these
certain media companies
here's the argument for why and then
here's the argument against
yeah you'd vote for me
of course if i ran for uh ran for office
i would be destroyed
by the media so it's a bad bet
but uh yeah i'd be i'd be an excellent
president in some ways probably bad in a
lot of other ways
so yeah if you can't understand the bill
you have to you have to oppose it
the san francisco chronicle
had an opinion piece now keep in mind
this is san francisco all right so
consider the source
and it's an opinion piece and says our
current requirements and punitive uh
actions talking about the pandemic
mandates and stuff
suggests that many of california's
health officials may be going off gut
feel
or worse ideology rather than a
calculable risk methodology
so the san francisco chronicle in the
heart of san francisco is saying um
i think maybe our our pandemic
requirements are not based on science
that's a shift
it's a zeitgeist shift
all right um
uh there's more fouchy versus rand paul
i saw a video that's new right
is is that
video i saw is rand paul grilling fouchy
again or yesterday or something
i think so right
it's new okay it's new
and in it
we see exactly what i told you was the
case uh who else told you this before i
did
did i tell you that the argument between
fouchy and rand paul was really a
definitional one
did i not tell you that fauci was just
using a different definition of gain a
function
than rand paul was and that that's what
it was well rand paul basically just
took that approach and just said it
looks like you just changed the
definition
so that you wouldn't look so bad
and i think that's exactly what happened
i mean i don't know
but it does look like they changed the
definition of gain of function on the
website
to hide the fact that it had been a
larger a larger definition than they
narrowed it
now i'm not the one who's going to say
that fauci did anything
wrong
in terms of funding gain a function
i don't feel like i can make that call
with what i know
because it comes down to
this it comes down to this
was the type of gain of function
more potential benefit than risk
or more risk than benefit
in other words if trying to defend
against a future gain of function attack
if you could do a better defense by
studying yourself
how much value would that have
hard to calculate right you couldn't
really calculate that
but likewise what are the risks that in
studying it you create the very problem
you were trying to
avoid
again
i don't think you could calculate it
which of those risks is bigger
do you know
i'll bet you know which one
scares you
but and i'll bet that's what you would
make your decision on because we don't
have the data
so you're going to end up making the
decision based on what scares you the
most
so what are you most afraid of
an intentional biological
or
accidentally creating a biological
attack in trying to defend it which one
of those
scares you the most
i don't know
they both sound pretty bad to me
so
if fouchy with his
body of knowledge about this stuff
concluded that the world was safer
studying it than not studying it
i'm not going to tell you he was wrong
he might have been and i'm not going to
tell you that rand paul is wrong that
under no circumstances should you get
near this stuff
i don't know that that's the right
decision
i feel like that's a fear a fear opinion
in other words if you're more afraid of
the accidental release than you are of
a foe intentionally releasing it
then you would go one way and if your
fear of the other thing was greater you
go the other way but you don't have data
you don't have any way to compare those
risks there's there's nothing to compare
you've just been guessing which one is
worse
so i'm not going to defend fauci i'm
just going to say that
there's a difference of
opinion
on the risk that's all we know that's
all we know difference of opinion
all right
i'm a big fan of rand paul so i i do
love that he's pushing this
because no matter what the real answer
is the public needs to know
no matter what the real answer is the
public needs to know so this is good
work by rand paul and again like i've
said a million times
there are only like four productive
members
of congress
it's all the same people all the time
and rand is one of them
um
all right
martin koldorf did a little analysis
comparing the israeli and versus the cdc
studies uh to see if
the uh
normal immunity is better than
vaccination i gotta i gotta run but the
bottom line is this that there israel
says
normal
normal immunity is stronger than
vaccination cdc says vaccination is
stronger than immunity cdc did their
math wrong
cdc did the math wrong
that's
i don't even need to add to anything
that do i the cdc
did the math wrong now when i say that i
mean the statistical approach they used
was apparently sub-optimal
but two opposite opposite opinions using
the same data boom
that's everything you need to know
and i am done for today gotta rock
see you later
