we need based on economics. But I get the other argument, right? I just prefer this one.

This is one of those where there really isn't another argument. This isn't like the other stuff. This is purely a psychological phenomenon. Has nothing to do with how smart you are, how much you know. Probably doesn't have anything to do with any of that. But let's walk through it.

My hypothesis is this: If you believe that Bill Gates is in it for the money, the power, or the control, you do not have a wise opinion. I'm not saying you're right or wrong. That's different. I'm saying you're not even smart enough to be in the conversation yet. And I shouldn't say smart because I don't think it's necessarily an IQ issue. I think that it's a talent stack issue.

I was looking at the people who were pushing back on my statement that the worst take on the internet is that Bill Gates is in it for the money. I was looking at all the pushback, and the first thing you do is you check the background of the people saying it. Now, the first thing I note, and I don't know why this is, there are a lot of people who seem to be professional trolls who get involved in any kind of a Bill Gates comment online. So I looked at a bunch of them. They're, you know, they have zero followers and seven followers and stuff, and they immediately pile in to say bad things about Bill Gates. Why? Why do apparently organized trolls, why do they care about this? And I don't know the answer. That doesn't make sense to me.

But there are other people who don't seem to be trolls. They've had accounts for a while. They comment on other things, and they also say that Bill Gates is clearly in it for the money or the control or to make things his way or his ideology. To which I say, let's sort that out a little bit. Are there any philanthropists who are not pursuing a philosophy? No, no, no. All philanthropists have some kind of philosophy, either helping the poor. Maybe they have a philosophy that the people who have the most should help the most. But they all have some philosophy. So that doesn't make sense as a criticism unless the philosophy is bad.

I heard one critic say they don't like it because Bill Gates is supporting critical race theory. To which I say, watch me not Google this. Okay, here's me not googling to find out if Bill Gates supports critical race theory. I don't have to check it. He doesn't. All right? And I'm saying that with full risk of embarrassment. I haven't checked it. I have no idea if I checked it what I would find. But I'm pretty confident that I'm not going to find he's in favor of or funding critical race theory, at least not directly. He might give to somebody who somehow is involved, but I don't have to check. That's so ridiculous because he's not that guy. He's not the guy pushing social issues. He's the guy pushing scientific issues. He's pushing what he thinks is just an obvious greater good.

Is anybody arguing that people should be saved from malaria if we can do it? It's not really a political issue. Does anybody think that it would be a bad idea for Africans to have working sanitation so that they don't use their water supply as their bathroom, which apparently is a gigantic problem? Is that a political thing? I mean, the things that Bill Gates works on are so outrageously non-political. You couldn't even get less political than the stuff he does.

I think people conflate him with Soros, and Soros seems to do more, at least as far as I can tell, more political, philosophical things. Bill Gates is just trying to make stuff work. He just wants water to be clean, air to be clean, that sort of thing. You know, people not dying of disease. So there's just no...

And when you read the articles, the arguments against him, I want to read them to you just so you see how they sound. Because it's the sound of them that really is the tick off. The key. They hear that there's something going on, some cognitive dissonance or something.

Let me see. I just want to look at my own tweet and we won't bore you much longer. All right, so just here's some of the pushback. All right, says Roly Poly, talking about Bill Gates, "He's corruptable just like everyone else." No, he's not. He's the opposite of that. He's not corruptable like everyone else. That's the entire point, is that you can't corrupt this guy because he doesn't need more money and he doesn't even need you to like him. Think about this. Bill Gates never has his back against criticism. He doesn't even care if you like him. Doesn't need the money. Doesn't care if you like him. All right, so he's definitely not corruptable because what do people like? They want reputation, money, power. He doesn't need any of that.

All right, let's see what else. The main thing that troubles me is how soft he is toward the CCP. He said that talking about the CCP cover-up is a distraction. Well, I agree with that. It is a distraction because whether we knew that they had done it or not, it wouldn't make any difference. That's what a distraction is. A distraction is that even if you could solve it, it wouldn't make any difference. What difference would it make? We know that major countries are experimenting with weaponizing stuff like this. We know we're doing it. We know they did it. We know I'm sure Russia is doing it. We know that everybody wants that stuff not to get out of the lab, right? Would China have a different opinion? Yeah, if hypothetically if this had gotten out of their lab, is China thinking, "Oh, well, let's let another one get out of the lab"? That's not happening.

Bill Gates is right. There's nothing that could come of knowing whether they did it or not because nobody would act differently. Nobody would act differently if we knew the answer to that. You know what? We'd push back a little bit, but it wouldn't make any difference. It wouldn't make any difference.

So all right, here's another one. "He's in it to win it. Question is, what is it? He looks like he's winning so far. His winning looks like humanity losing." What kind of a comment is that? He's in it to win it, but we don't know what he wants to win. I feel like it's pretty obvious. He's helping build and design toilets in Africa, solving malaria, you know, trying to work on solving climate change with nuclear energy, et cetera. I don't think it could be more obvious what he's in it for: to help humanity.

Now, what if helping humanity is good for his ego? Then is it really about his ego? Who cares? Who cares? Do you care if he's only in it for his ego if all the things he does are good for the greater good? Now, you might disagree that this is for the greater good, but the point is I don't think that matters. He's doing it for his health? No. I assume he wants the praise, admiration, and sense of accomplishment. Okay, okay. You've certainly seen me do things for you or for the public that seem to be more for other people, right? They're more examples of generosity. But nobody's kidding themselves that I don't get something out of it too, right? Aren't you all smart enough to know that no matter who you are, if you do something for other people, that you also get something out of that? What you usually get out of it is you feel good or it's good for your reputation or something like that. But what's wrong with that? Those are good things. True altruism probably doesn't exist, but altruism in which the person who's the giver feels good about themselves, that definitely exists. I do it all the time.

All right, and you can think of it as selfish or think of it as giving, but it ends up being the same thing.

Somebody else says that Bill Gates is a puppet. Really? You think Bill Gates is somebody's puppet? Who has control of Bill Gates? I don't think that's the thing. There's no evidence of it.

How about he's in it for the power because the power is addictive? So and that's a problem because the power he seems to want has nothing to do with politics. The power he seems to want is the power to fix things. Do you want to deny him the power to make things better or the power to maybe work on the next challenge because he did a good job on the first one? Why? Why would you want to deny him that power?

And Charlie says, "What began with the love of money ends in pride." Really? Really? The whole reason that Bill Gates is doing this is for pride? What evidence of that? You have to look at these comments to realize how whack they are.

And Bonnie says, "I will stop watching if we continue down this road." Bonnie, I'm going to solve this for you. You're going to stop watching now. Goodbye. I think that only puts your comments in timeout. I don't like threats. So feedback is great, but if you put your feedback in the form of a threat, I'd rather you just leave. So goodbye.

All right, we'll talk about cognitive dissonance a little bit more in a minute here. Let me give you some propaganda alerts, which you call news.

Remember I told you that Fox News was reporting that Biden's climate plan would make you eat no more than one burger a month? And I told you you don't really need to look into that to know that's not true. If you needed to do research to know that it was never true that Biden was going to limit you to one hamburger a month, you have to question yourself. I mean, seriously, take a look at yourself. Did you really need to look, wait for the fact check on that one? I mean, seriously, just step away from it for a moment. Just give yourself some distance. Imagine you're just looking down on it like it's a story about other people. And somebody said that somebody has a plan to limit you to one hamburger a month, and the person who wants to limit you to one hamburger a month is in a party that likes to get reelected. Do those two things fit? Can you make those two things work in your head? It's a party, Democrats, who like to get reelected, and they've got a plan to limit you to one hamburger a month. This could never have been true. If you needed to Google it to find out it wasn't true, seriously, you have to ask yourself what kind of stuff are you believing?

I mean, if you believe that, if even for a moment you thought that could be true, you really have to step back and see what's happened to all of us. I mean, the fact that that was even a little bit suggestive of something that could have been true, you really have to ask yourself what's happened to us all.

All right, so it turns out that John Roberts on Fox News basically did a correction on that and said that that was not accurate. By the way, I always make this distinction and I think it's worth making. If you see the news people report something wrong, get fact-checked, and then just say directly this was wrong, I don't have a problem with that at all. Now, I get the argument that people hear the rumor but they don't hear the correction. But I would say in this case the correction was given in exactly the highest form. I mean, it was an anchor on the news talking about his own network getting a story wrong. That's about as big a correction as you can make. And it was done on air and then it became a story itself. So I'm going to give him the, not just John Roberts but Fox News, I'll give them the 48 hours correction clarification. And I would say that that is acceptable, but it certainly will fool a lot of people.

There's another story in the news about a man named, his last name is Brown, and he was killed in North Carolina a week recently. Are you having the same problem I am that you can't keep all the black people killed by police straight in your head anymore? Because there's a lot of news about police killing black people, like way too much, in the sense that it's making your hair catch on fire. Like, what's going on? Now, I'm not saying that all of these stories tell you the story that the narrative tells. I'm not saying that they all feed into that. But the story i