Because the government cannot really do something that the public hates too much. You need a little bit of support, right? So I wonder about that.

So it would be great to be able to figure out how many of us have actually had it in some statistically valid way so that you could get talked out of the odds that you are one of the few people who had it. Because I do not think 50 percent of the country had coronavirus in January. I mean, maybe.

Somebody said, does Scott get the flu shot? You know, I used to, but I have not the last two years because it feels like the odds of it making a difference are so low that I cannot tell myself to walk across the parking lot and get a shot. I probably should, you know, if I were being super rational about it. But the benefit in terms of mentally how much benefit I think I got, I think they are just guessing with these flu shots. Like, you know, they are trying to guess which one is going to be the active one and it is already too late by the time the shot is put together. So I probably should, but the benefit is shrunk to the point where I cannot motivate myself to do it. So do not take my advice on that. That is for sure.

All right, I was asked to look at a video, a documentary called *Out of Shadows*. This might get me thrown off the internet. We will find out. Now Mike Cernovich mentioned it on Twitter and that alerted me to it, and somebody asked me my opinion on it. So I thought, all right, I was doing a little drawing anyway, needed something to listen to, so I listened to it. And it is definitely worth watching. But I also say that things are worth watching when I do not think they are true. All right?

So it is definitely worth watching in the same way that I love all the ancient alien TV shows. I do not quite think those shows are necessarily spot-on what really happened, but they are really fun to watch because I am always amazed that they can find so much evidence for, you know, any damn theory that they want. So it does not have to be true to be recommendable. You can make your own mind up about how much is true.

Anyway, it is all a Hollywood stuntman who said he sort of ended up going down this rabbit hole of discovery about what is really running the world and how things really work. And he had the following revelations, if you can call it that. Now again, you get to decide: are these true revelations or is he overinterpreting or crazy or what? But here are the things he believes that he has plenty of evidence for.

Number one, that the CIA is and always has been influencing movies and books of entertainment to brainwash the public for whatever reasons the CIA in the country you think would be good for the country or good for somebody. So claim number one: CIA influences popular culture on a routine basis for some effect. True or false? I would say obviously true. That was not even in question at the very least. We all know that the military has always worked with Hollywood to make sure the military is portrayed in a good light, and that is clearly just propaganda for the country. Well, I am not saying it is evil. I am not saying it is wrong.

But of course now you should also expect — and here is my general statement about these things — whenever you have a situation where it is possible to do something and there are a lot of people involved so it is not just one person making a decision but lots of people are involved, it is possible to do something and there is a gigantic upside, potentially, not necessarily but potentially a huge upside, and almost no risk, what happens in all of those situations? In all of those situations bad behavior happens every time.

So you do not have to ask yourself, huh, I wonder if this is one of those rare times when there was something to gain, something devious was easy to do, it would almost certainly work, the upside potential would be incalculable, and the odds of being caught and punished are basically nothing. You do not really have to ask. You do not have to ask is there evidence. You do not even need evidence.

Now in the film he offers some evidence and talks about things that are unclassified and, you know, it is fairly convincing. But I do not think you needed any evidence because of course it is being done. And you can extend that of course we are doing it to other countries. Do I need any evidence to know that the CIA is attempting anyway to influence other countries by influencing their media and their news? Well, I have no evidence to suggest that is true except it is true because they can, there is a big upside, there is not really much penalty of getting caught. As long as those factors are in place, of course it is happening. And you should assume that other countries are also trying to influence our media, our news, etc.

So for a documentary that is making shocking claims I found it fairly ordinary at least on that part. So there is a second part that is even more fun. And so I judge that true, although maybe some of the examples — here is where I depart from the documentary. I do not think we can necessarily spot those cases. We might think we can. Yeah, you might look at a movie now and I would say, huh, now that I know the CIA is doing it I can tell that that part of the movie was influenced by the CIA. You cannot do that. All right, that is not a thing.

If they are doing it they are probably clever enough that it is not going to be heavy-handed. Or if it is heavy-handed such as making the military look good then it is probably exactly what you think it is. But I do not think you can necessarily spot those clever ways that they are influencing the media. Sometimes it is obvious. When you are watching the news, well sometimes that is a little bit obvious. Like when NBC does stuff you look at NBC and you think, oh they should just change their initials to CIA, because sometimes it is just so obvious. But you can be wrong about those too. So I suppose I can be wrong about that.

All right, a big part of the claim is that there are in fact very large and active pedophile rings at the highest rooms of power and Hollywood and in government and among rich people. Do I judge that to be true or false? Of course it is true. Is anybody doubting that? Does anybody doubt that there are powerful groups — I do not know if they are all connected, but you know, there are clearly powerful groups within different countries, different organizations, clearly powerful pedophiles in Hollywood. Plenty of reporting on that.

Now I do not have to have meetings. I do not know how much they share. Yeah, you have to assume that there is some of that too. So I am going to say that the general claim that there are gigantic, widespread, semi-organized and sometimes very organized pedophile rings, I would say is true.

Now the second part of that claim is that the CIA may also be somehow associated with some of this because it allows them to get dirt on people that they could later influence. Now do you think that the CIA, or let us take any intelligence agency, it does not have to be the CIA, could be any other country, do you think that any intelligence agency would try to get compromising sex-related or even illegal behavior activity of important people such that they can influence them later? Yes. Yes, of course. Why? It is easy to do. There is a huge upside. Almost no penalty for getting caught. And a lot of people are involved. As I said, every box. So again you do not need any evidence to know that. You do not need evidence to know that there is plenty of pedophilia going around at high levels. I feel like you all agree with that, right?

How organized it is and if you are gonna throw in Hillary Clinton I have got a problem with that. Like I do not think there is any evidence that Hillary Clinton is in on it. So you know, you could extend it to the point of ridiculous. But certainly there is plenty of it going on and you should assume that every intelligence agency everywhere in every country is taking advantage of it wherever they can. So certainly there would be some kind of overlap between those.

There is another part that I thought was interesting is that even though it was sort of taking the — I hate to even use the word because I am gonna get — I do not want to get blocked on platforms so I am gonna reverse a word. Okay, if the second part of the word is “gate” and the first part of the word is a round flat food item that has sauce and cheese on it usually. I do not want to use the word because the voice-to-text will pick it up and I will get kicked off of YouTube just for mentioning it.

So this is mentioned. But interestingly even though it is a documentary promoting that these things exist it did not find any evidence that common pizza was involved with anything. So I thought, well that is — yeah, at least that is fair. It did not find any evidence that that one business was involved. And indeed nobody else has either. But it did mention that there was a similar store like right on the block or across the street that had as its logo the international sign for pedophilia. I do not know if that is true. Somebody would have to fact-check that. So I am not sure I believe it just because it was in the documentary.

But then here is the part that was really interesting. You know all those emails that got hacked, you know the stories about the references to that round flat food item. And you know that that is allegedly, and I guess there is pretty good evidence for it, there is a code word for people operating in this shadowy world. And it has been a while since I have seen the actual emails and so I was showing the actual sentences that this word was used in and it is laughingly obvious that they are not really talking about the food. Now I guess there is some chance that they were using this specific food item as a code word for some completely unrelated thing. That is possible. But you could tell quite clearly from the sentence they were not talking about food because of the way it was used. And it is obvious it was not about food. So it was a code for something. And it is well known that this code apparently exists in that shadowy particular underworld. So I have to say that that was pretty compelling. Pretty compelling.

Now what I always warn against is with any documentary if you do not see the counterpoint you can really be convinced by one side of any argument. So with that caveat I have only seen their explanation. Maybe the next person would say no those are not even the right emails, that is from something else. Or they might say no you fool there was nothing across the street, he made that part up. So I do not know what the counter-argument. But if you were just to judge it by itself and you did not look for any other context, pretty, pretty convincing I got to say. But it does not mean it is true.

All right, then the other part there that for me was sort of a tell that it was not all true was all the satanic stuff. So there was quite a bit of tying that world into the satanic world. And the whole satanic stuff honestly no, no, rang as probably true. Cannot rule it out. Do not rule it out. But it is a little bit too on the nose. Like the McMartin preschool case which had similar allegations and turned out to be false.

Anyway, let us see. Apparently the *New York Times* wrote up a piece in which they were trying to excuse Biden from the allegations against him for some MeToo stuff back in the 90s. And they tweeted a part of the article but then they had to go back and change the article. But they left the tweet up, you know. And the part that they got rid of is that they were trying to excuse Biden and they said that they could not find any evidence in his past after they did their research. They could not find any bad behavior, quote, “beyond hugs, kisses, and touching that people were uncomfortable with.”

Now I am thinking, what do you mean they could not find any bad behavior aside from hugs, kisses, and touching that people found uncomfortable? Yeah. And so it is one of those self-canceling sentences. Like wait a minute, that is bad behavior if they were uncomfortable and he kept doing it. Or even if they were comfortable with it would still be bad behavior by the standards of the day. So I guess they had to go back and get rid of that sentence in the article but they had already tweeted it and they kept the tweet up. So they were busted on that.

And of course all the alert pundits said *New York Times*, you are not even pretending to do journalism anymore. That is not even trying to hide it. They were not. I mean it was purely just trying to defend Biden against exactly the same kind of accusations that Kavanaugh had and making them just completely reverse their stand. The whole media really, really reversed their stand and argued the point that they were just arguing the opposite of a year ago. So they look like idiots. Fun.

All right, I gotta say by now I am gonna do the controversial part first so that I do not end on that. I think you will appreciate that.

So I have been mowing the lawn on Twitter. What I mean by mowing the lawn is that I say something that I know will get people all worked up and then I know who to block. So I thought I was kicking up the Chinese trolls because I have a suspicion that you have heard the reporting that there is massive Chinese interference already on social media. So there are lots of Chinese bots pretending to be real people dealing with people. Now I assume I would be on their target list or at least of the top hundred, right? Because I am sure they have got lots of targets but I am probably the top hundred just because of the things I say and I am near the top of the hating the Chinese government.

So what do we assume? That I am probably on their radar one way or the other. And so I thought, well I am gonna see if I can surface them by saying something that they would be more likely to respond to than normal people. Now I think this strategy failed completely. It is possible that some of the people I blocked they were Chinese agents but probably none. Because what I did was I accidentally kicked up all the people who have really bad arguments about freedom and they got really mad at me.

Now all the people who got blocked, it is not so much because they had a different opinion. Again I do not block people for different opinions. Do not do it. I do block people if they