Episode 1183 Scott Adams: Let's Talk About the Massive Brainwashing Operation Going on Now
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Current fake news stories
Allegations and statistical anomalies
Debunking misinterpretations
Why Joe Biden is a horrible person
Media coverage of election fraud
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
I know you're coming here because it's the best time of the day.
Every single time.
And one way you can know it will be an incredible day is if you have the simultaneous sip.
Yeah, it's pretty much guaranteed if you do that.
And all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tankard, chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better except statistics.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go. I can feel my Benford curve bending.
Can't you? Yeah.
Well, there's an allegation that CNN got rid of its COVID banner.
Do you think that's true?
Because I don't know if they use the COVID counter on every single story all the time anyway.
So are we only imagining that they suddenly took down the COVID death count?
Because I feel as though that wasn't for every story all the time.
They just put it up now and then.
So I've got a feeling that's fake news.
But we'll talk about some other fake news.
And some real ones.
A company called Celex, a biotech company, and Gauss, who's a computer vision startup, they announced that they have got approval for an at-home coronavirus test that has sensitivities of...
94% and specificity of 97%.
Now, I'm not going to get into the technical difference between the sensitivity and the specificity.
One has to do with finding the virus, the other has to do with finding antibodies, I think.
But the point is that these are sensitive enough that if you had a lot of these and people had them at home and they could test it themselves, I think it comes with this little inexpensive device that comes with the test kit or something.
That's how they make it cheap. But isn't it great that Vice President-elect Biden is getting so much done?
So now he's got a vaccine, and it looks like Vice President-elect Biden now has a cheap at-home test.
Those were the two things we needed to get past coronavirus.
And it only took Vice President-elect one week to get all of that done.
So, jokes on President Trump for doing absolutely nothing for four years, and then Biden comes in one week.
One week. He's got this whole pandemic under control.
So, I guess, pretty good deal.
Here's some more fake news.
If you saw on social media that Real Clear Politics...
Had decided to take Pennsylvania out of the Biden column and put it into the undecided column.
I fell for that one.
I even retweeted that one.
Fake news. Fake news.
Never happened.
It turns out that real clear politics never had Pennsylvania as decided in the first place, so there was nothing to reverse.
Just somebody noticed it wasn't there and assumed it had been reversed, but they just had kept it undecided.
Another fake news is, also saw on, I think only on social media, that Brett Baer deleted a tweet because it got so much pushback And Fox News hatred.
And the tweet that he deleted that got all of this Fox News hatred was him just tweeting that he'll be on tonight with Martha McCallum.
And that was it. His entire tweet was, I'll be on at X time with Martha McCallum.
But in the comments, there were just reams of Fox News hatred, mostly because of the Arizona calling that for Biden in what people thought was too early.
And then Brett Baer deleted the tweet, and it gets reported as if he deleted it because of all the bad feedback.
But fake news.
Fake news. In my opinion, it's fake news.
Because even this morning, I tweeted that same kind of tweet, which I will delete as soon as we're done here.
Because my tweet said something about today's episode of this.
So if I leave that tweet up until tomorrow, it will look like I'm referring to tomorrow as today, so of course I will delete it.
All Brett Baer did was delete a tweet that should be deleted because it times out because it's talking about today.
You don't leave a tweet up that talks about today after today.
It would be misleading.
So, you know, I can't read Bret Baier's mind and know whether he deleted it because of all the bad comments, but I know that if he didn't delete it just as a matter of course, because it is a deletable tweet that should be deleted on the next day, I'd be surprised. Alright, so that's your little bit of fake news there.
Fox News also reported that Bill Barr, Attorney General, has given the green light for the Department of Justice to look into election mischief.
And here's how Fox News couched that.
Even though little evidence of fraud has been put forth, Do you find that to be a true statement?
Would you say it's true that, quote, little evidence of fraud has been put forth?
Would you say that's a true statement?
That feels like an opinion, doesn't it?
Because how much is a lot?
How much is a little?
If you've been looking at the statistical arguments, you mostly, or maybe only, mostly, I think, will see it on social media.
You won't see it on the news so much.
Now, I would assume that a lot of those statistical arguments, when you dig into them, you might find out that they don't hold up.
That's what I would expect.
Just in general, any kind of claims in this situation are not going to hold up in the long run.
It wouldn't matter if the roles were reversed.
It wouldn't matter what the claim is.
A lot of things won't hold up in the long run.
But there are a lot of them, wouldn't you say?
Wouldn't you say that there are a lot of statistical claims and that they haven't been debunked?
That doesn't mean that they won't be debunked, but what we're talking about now is, is there evidence enough that professionals should get involved looking into it?
We're not saying that something's been proven already.
That's the whole point of having the professionals look into it, to see if there's anything that can be or should be proven.
So, is it accurate to say that there's little evidence?
I would say that there's a lot of evidence that's been presented But it has not been confirmed.
Wouldn't that be more accurate?
Plenty of allegations, plenty of evidence presented, mostly in the statistical sense, but not confirmed.
Isn't that exactly why you have the Department of Justice look into it?
Yeah, it seems to me there are plenty of claims.
Whether they hold up is a separate question.
All right. Joe Biden could set a weird record By becoming president, if in fact he becomes president.
So every time I talk about president-elect Joe Biden or Joe Biden being president, run a little recording in your head that says, but you know it's not official and it could well be reversed and there's a pretty good chance it will be.
So play that in your head every time you hear me talking about Joe Biden, okay?
It could be reversed.
It probably will be.
Well, I don't know if it probably will be, but there's a good chance.
But here's the weird record he could have.
He could get the most votes in absolute numbers.
He could get the most votes of anybody who ever elected president while simultaneously having the lowest approval of any president.
Now, I say he will have the lowest approval level without regard to anything he actually does, because Can you say with some certainty that Republicans will say he's doing a bad job?
Yes, of course.
Exactly as you could say if a Republican is president, you could count on just about all of the Democrats saying that Republican is doing a bad job.
But what's different is that while Trump consolidated Republicans and He had something like, I don't know, 96% support.
It looks like Biden's going to be going in with a split Democratic Party, you know, the extremists, if you will, the progressives and the moderates.
So if you imagine that the half, let's say a third of the Democratic Party will be unhappy with Joe Biden because he's not extreme enough, And 100% or something like it of the Republicans will be against him.
Doesn't that get you down to the lowest job approval of all time, while also simultaneously getting the most votes for president?
That's going to happen, right?
I mean, almost certainly that's going to happen.
I don't know how it can be avoided.
So I think we'll see Biden approvals in the low 40s, eventually.
You know, you'll have a little honeymoon period, perhaps.
Maybe this will be the time there is no honeymoon period.
But I would expect it to drift into the low 40s.
And I don't think it will ever get anywhere near Trump approval levels.
If Biden becomes president, which is by no means certain, certainly has not been determined, and there's a good chance it won't happen.
All right. Here's an interesting question which I think should be posed to Democrats.
It goes like this.
If you believed that Trump was an existential threat and you believed he was a Hitler-like character, and don't you feel that Democrats would say they do believe that and did believe that, That Trump is not an ordinary Republican, but rather an existential threat and a Hitler-like menace to the world, if not the country.
Now, if you believe that, and you're willing to say that in public, yes, I believe that is true, how do you defend not trying to rig the election, if that is also your claim that it was not rigged?
How in the world could you be a moral, ethical, good person?
And you wouldn't try to rig the election to keep Hitler out of office?
Because let me tell you, I would try to rig that election.
I would risk jail to keep an existential threat and a Hitler out of office.
Why wouldn't you? If you put me in that situation, I'm either going to say, well, it's not that bad.
He's not actually Hitler.
Or, if I say that he is Hitler, and I believe it, I'm going to act on it.
You don't not act on Hitler.
Now, granted, not every person is going to act on everything, but shouldn't you expect the Democrats, as a group, would have plenty of people who would say, whoa, this is not like other elections.
This is not like every other year.
We've got to go here and...
I just realized I might be wearing my shirt backwards.
Just ignore the fact that my shirt is inside out.
Not backwards, inside out.
Act like you don't even see it.
If you're just listening to this on the podcast and you can't see the video, there's nothing wrong with my shirt.
I'm wearing my shirt completely correctly.
So anyway, Democrats have some weird cognitive dissonance trigger here, because if they didn't try to rig the election, they're either liars or cowards, or there's something going on that we don't understand.
Maybe there's some other explanation?
Alright, now you're obsessed with my shirt, so you won't hear anything else I say.
Alright, one pushback I saw...
From somebody who tried to argue against the statistical arguments about the election being rigged.
Now the statistical arguments, if you haven't heard them, it's a variety of different arguments about different things that all have the same quality.
Which is, this couldn't have happened by itself.
Meaning that some of the argument is that there are more people who voted than has ever voted as a percentage of the population, you know, by a lot.
So much so that the odds that it really happened are not zero, but really close to zero.
But you could say to yourself, well, that's just one thing.
It is natural that if you're looking at a lot of different statistics, some of them are going to be weird because that's how statistics work.
And here's an argument that I saw online from just random Twitter user.
But I thought it was interesting enough to talk about.
And he said that the statistical arguments are cherry picking.
And his argument is this.
You could find, if you cherry picked and looked for them, you could find places where the vote was unusual for Republicans.
In other words, you could find a city Where the Republican vote was way on a line or the number of people who voted doesn't make sense.
Do you believe that?
Now, I don't know that anybody's looked for that.
But if they did look, do you believe that they would find also statistical anomalies that go in the other direction?
Not a bad comment, is it?
If we're trying to be rational here, and I try to create, let's say, a culture, if you will, for my live streams...
That you're not going to be dogmatic and just agree with your team on every single thing because that's sort of not what we do here.
So if you're being objective and you saw a whole bunch of statistical claims made by one side against the other, but you hadn't seen the full context, how certain should you be that those statistical claims could not have been made in the other direction if somebody just looked for them?
It's a pretty good comment, isn't it?
Right? No, not really.
Because there's a second layer to the claims.
The claims are not simply, hey, we found some cities and some locations that have some anomalies.
If that were the only claim, then it would be a perfectly good debunking to say, there are always anomalies.
There will be anomalies in the other direction.
There's going to be some anomalies this way.
Every year you looked at it, there would be anomalies.
Any other situation you looked at that was big and complicated, you would see a statistical distribution where there's a little bit of natural clustering, and it wouldn't mean a thing.
It would just mean that you picked these ones that are anomalies, and there are always anomalies, right?
Except for the other layer.
The anomalies that worked against the Republicans Happened to occur in all the right places.
So it's that second level of coincidence that takes it to, okay, this isn't just cherry picking.
Probably, right?
Now, you and I have not dug into it.
You and I are probably not statistical experts.
So we can find out anything in the long run.
But... The claim that a statistical anomaly will happen or lots of them will happen in both directions is fair.
But when you add that extra layer that why they only happen in these places, exactly the places that they needed to happen, once you add that second layer of coincidence, If the claim holds up, and again, I'm not the one who looked into it personally.
I'm just reading claims.
But if those claims hold up, it's going to be hard to explain that as a coincidence.
All right. I don't know why I'm going to mention this, and I probably shouldn't, but you know, you get something in your head and you can't get it out of your head until you say it out loud.
You ever had that situation?
There's just a random thing that's not too important and it's rolling around in your head.
But damn it, if you don't say it out loud eventually, it'll just keep rolling around in there until you get it out of there.
So I'm going to do that.
I will ask your indulgence for a point that has no relevance to anything.
And it goes like this.
Maybe we live in a simulation because...
If you're a victim, and this is why I didn't want to mention it, if you're a victim of sexual assault, what professional are you likely to pay to help you if you've been the victim of a sexual assault?
Now, of course, there's the legal system, but that's separate.
You wouldn't necessarily be paying for that.
That would be a public service.
But who would you pay You'd probably pay somebody called a therapist.
Yeah, you're way ahead of me.
What are the odds that the people who are the victims of sexual assault almost have to, because it would mess with your mind, would have to see a professional whose name is a therapist, which is literally the words the rapist put together?
I mean, you can't even laugh at that because the topic is ugly, right?
You can't make fun of sexual assault.
But what are the odds that the one job That deals with people who are, and fairly frequently, right?
I would imagine if you're a therapist, probably, I don't know, 40 to 60% of your business is people who are victims of sexual assault and had a big deal, had a lot to do with why they're feeling the way they feel.
That's just creepy and crazy, and they need to change their name, honestly.
Because I don't think if I had been a victim of that particular crime...
That I could ever see the word therapist and feel okay with it.
I would always see, always see the part that comes after the.
Always. I mean, literally, you should just change the name of your business.
You should be something, not a therapist.
Alright, are you ready for your red pill of the moment?
Here it comes. The moment you've been waiting for.
The reason that you joined me here on Facebook.
Coffee with Scott Adams.
The thought that you did not have on your own until you heard it from me.
And it goes like this.
Remember I always tell you to look for what's happening, but if you want to understand the situation also, look for what's not happening, which is called the dog that isn't barking, from Sherlock Holmes' reference.
So if there's a dog that should have been barking, because the allegation is that there was an intruder in the backyard...
And that dog doesn't bark.
You have to ask yourself, why is there a lack of facts here?
And here is the dog that's not barking about this election.
And it comes in the form of top statistical experts who are Democrats.
Who are looking at the statistical arguments coming out of the weaponized autism on the right, and they're making quite a few claims about statistical irregularities that could not happen naturally.
What is the most logical, ordinary thing you would expect to happen, given that the left is completely unified in saying that none of that Mischief happened, or if it did, it was trivial.
So isn't the most logical thing that CNN would do, given that this claim of impropriety is so big, and it seems to be at least at this point based primarily on statistical observation, plus there are a bunch of witnesses who have signed affidavits, but we'll get to them next.
But there's a statistical thing.
So wouldn't you expect that the top statistical minds who are anti-Trump would be all over CNN and all over MSNBC and they would say, you know, this Benford analysis, that's not really a thing, right? Or they'd say, you know, this Benford analysis, it is a thing, but they used the wrong data or maybe the data isn't reliable or something.
Wouldn't you expect that since the biggest issue in the world is, hey, these statistics show there was a gigantic fraud big enough to change the election, don't you need to get your experts in there to talk against that?
You do, don't you?
And it's kind of missing, isn't it?
Now, did you notice it was missing until I just brought it up?
So here's your check on yourself.
If you didn't notice this until I brought it up, there's a mental, let's say, method that you're lacking.
And the mental method you're lacking is you should every now and then, almost like there's a timer set in your brain, say, wait a minute, is there anything missing here that you would naturally see here if you knew what should be here?
Is there anything missing? That should be part of your mental habit.
Because you won't be, and here's the hard part, you won't be triggered to look for something that isn't there, because that's the point.
There's nothing to trigger you.
It's simply a lack of something.
So there's nothing to remind you to look for the nothing.
Because there's no trigger for nothing.
So you've got to really force yourself.
Alright, alright. Is there something that should be happening that's missing?
And then you can maybe find it.
Now, full disclosure, I didn't think of that thought until I saw somebody else say it on Twitter today.
So I stole the thought.
And I'm the one who teaches you that you should do this.
And even I didn't do it.
And as soon as I saw that I wish I'd gotten the name, but I would give credit to who inspired this thought, but I didn't write it down, so I'm a bad person.
Well, you know who you are.
If you're watching this livestream, I saw your tweet and I got it from you, so you can claim credit.
But keep watching for that.
Every day that goes by, the CNN and the other media do not have a statistical expert debunking it.
It means something. It does mean something.
It's not confirmation, but it certainly pushes you in that direction.
I'm going to brag a little bit about my tweet on this very topic, because I like the way I worded it, so I'll share it with you.
It's the same point, I just worded it differently.
I said in my tweet, do you hear that dog that isn't barking?
It's the top statistical experts on the left who are looking at election rigging allegations and coming to a slow boil in their own flop sweat.
So I was pretty proud of that sentence.
I think we should, you know, there's a lot of questions and skepticism about a software product, or I don't know if it's the company name, Or the software name called Dominion.
Apparently this software company controls the technology for a number of different states and locales.
And a lot of questions have been asked about this Dominion software.
And I thought, you know, if we can't solve this with the technical people, we should have some kind of a national vote to see if we should keep the Dominion software to...
Oh wait, that won't work.
Okay, never mind. I guess we don't have a way to do a national vote about whether our national voting software is credible.
Because who would believe the output of a national vote about our software that controls the national vote?
All right, expect this play coming up.
This will be what...
I use CNN as my stand-in for the fake news on the left.
So it's not just CNN. But you're going to see what I call the wrong debunk play.
So you've got all these claims about specific allegations that the election was not fair.
Do you think that CNN will pick the strongest points?
This is what I always recommend.
If somebody gives you a laundry list of reasons, just ask for the strongest point and debunk that one.
And then if you debunk the strongest point, just say, eh, the rest of your stuff is worse than that one.
I already debunked that one.
And walk away. But here's another play that you can do with the laundry list.
So the Republicans have offered a laundry list of alleged mischief with this election.
So let's say, I'm just making up this number, by the way, but let's say the GOP says, we have 25 statistical arguments for why the vote was rigged.
It'll be some number. I made up 25.
What will the Democrats say to that?
You can predict this with complete certainty.
They will misinterpret some of the claims, and they will debunk their own misinterpretation of the claims, and then they will ignore the other claims, the good ones.
So they'll pick ones that are either the weakest ones to debunk, Or they'll misinterpret a strong one and debunk their misinterpretation.
But they'll do about three of them, if there are 24, and then CNN will report what will be the words that CNN would report under the example I just gave.
25 statistical claims with backing from the Republicans, and then the Democrats misinterpret three of them.
And debunk their own misinterpretation of just three of them and the 25.
This is the hypothetical here.
This is not news. This is hypothetical.
What would CNN report under that scenario?
Baseless. Exactly.
I'm seeing it in the comments.
You're all there first. They would say it's been debunked, it's baseless, and no evidence has been offered.
And it's a baseless conspiracy theory.
You know that's coming.
A hundred percent chance.
You can see the play coming.
And the reason that you can see it coming and it doesn't matter is that it will work.
It will work.
Now that doesn't mean it'll be the final word, but it will be persuasive.
It will convince Democrats.
DeRay McKesson, who's a Black Lives Matter activist, he won a Supreme Court ruling Apparently he was being sued for being an organizer of a protest in which some other person, who was not DeRay, threw a brick or a rock or something at a police officer and caused brain damage.
Loss of teeth and a head injury.
So, you know, a major life problem there forever for that police officer.
Pretty tragic. But I guess the Supreme Court ruled that as the organizer you are not...
Responsible for the actions of individuals who get organized.
And I think it probably has to be that way.
I don't see any way that you can hold a free speech organizer responsible for what the individuals do.
So I get that it has to be that way, so I would agree with the Supreme Court.
I think they got the ruling right.
But I feel as if, if you organize something in which you know there will be violence, But you don't know the specific violence and you're not the one that threw the rock.
At some point, we need to be smarter about this.
Because organizing events that guarantee somebody's going to get hurt, I don't know, maybe we could do better.
I don't have an idea, but I feel like we could do better.
Now, one of the things that's weird about this situation we're seeing with the election is that you don't often have a situation where you're being brainwashed And you know it while it's happening.
Sometimes you can look back and say, wait a minute.
I did the Pledge of Allegiance every day when I was a kid without even questioning it.
Hey, I was being brainwashed.
So often you can see it in the history, but you don't often feel it while it's happening to you in the moment.
And that's what we're feeling right now.
We're feeling in the moment Oh, I think somebody's correcting me in the comments that the DeRay McKesson thing might have been a civil action, if that makes a difference to the story.
It might. But anyway, back to brainwashing.
The country is being brainwashed right now, and I don't use that word figuratively.
Everything from intelligence professionals not necessarily actively working, but the news business and Democrats are working together.
It's very obvious now.
I think I can say that with certainty, as opposed to an allegation, that they do work together.
They coordinate whether or not they have meetings to coordinate.
They obviously coordinate messaging, etc., And that they are brainwashing the public to accept this outcome.
Now when I say brainwashing, they are not really dealing with the facts of whether it was fraudulent or not, or how much it was fraudulent.
But they're literally telling people that they're bad people for being skeptical of the outcome.
That you're actually a bad person.
If you don't believe the outcome and you spread rumors that you don't believe it.
And that, worse, that you will be held to account for doubting it.
Now, I just got a message that my battery on my device is down to 10%.
I'm going to try to rush to the end here.
If it cuts off, it would only cut off on YouTube first.
You'll know what happened.
I won't be back because I'm almost done.
Penn Jillette. I love Penn Jillette, by the way.
I got to hang out with him once in Vegas after his show.
Great guy. I love Penn Jillette.
And also a great patriot, I would say.
He adds a lot to the country.
So he made a case that he wasn't so much pro-Joe Biden as he wanted a better world, I guess.
And he wants one thing for Joe Biden to do.
And I would say this is a very kind, productive, good thing to ask for.
And he's asking for Joe Biden to help them love all the Trump supporters.
So Patent Gillette is anti-Trump, but he's asking as the number one priority for Joe Biden to help Democrats love Trump supporters, despite whatever they think about them.
I'm not there.
I love Penn Jillette.
I like the thought, the emotion, the philosophy behind what he's asking for.
But he has a blind spot.
And the blind spot goes like this.
Joe Biden called Trump supporters by implication.
Racists for the last year.
Because he led his campaign with that stupid find people hoax, which makes anybody who backs somebody who had said, if Trump had backed the neo-Nazis, if you were to back Trump after he, it's fake news, but after they say he backed the neo-Nazis, well, you would be kind of a racist or a neo-Nazi.
And I don't think the Democrats quite understand what happened.
I don't think they understand what happened to Republicans and what happened to Trump supporters, be they Republican or not.
I don't think they know that you don't get over that.
That's not in the category of things you get over.
Let me give you an example of something you get over.
Hey, you're stupid.
I can get over that.
You made a dumb choice.
I can get over that.
You choose all the wrong policies, you dumb, ignorant guy.
I can get over that.
But after a year of the standard-bearer for your party calling me a racist, effectively, by saying the fine people hoax, that's not like those other things.
That is unforgivable.
Period. It is unforgivable.
Joe Biden, you're not a nice person.
You're one of the worst people that I've ever seen in the public arena.
Because I feel like you knew that wasn't true.
And if you didn't know it wasn't true, you're really incompetent.
Because it's pretty easy to know that wasn't true.
So, I'm just going to speak for myself.
I don't plan to get over it.
I don't plan to accept any of their love if they are so kind as to forgive me for my actions.
And it was racist.
So I think Joe Biden is a horrible person.
And I mean that sincerely.
I mean that as a human being.
Forget about the politics.
Forget about Democrats versus Republicans.
As a human being, he's really a deeply horrible person.
And I mean that sincerely.
And that's not going to change.
I am not ever going to forgive this last year.
Now, if there are people who say the same thing about Trump and he did this or that, you know, you're welcome to your opinion.
But don't even ask me to not think that Joe Biden is a horrible human being, even if he turns out to be a good president.
You know, anything's possible.
Could be that the Republican Senate...
Keeps him in the middle.
Something good happens there.
You never know. But as a human, he is despicable.
Just a horrible, horrible person.
Really one of the worst. I'm going to be honest, one of the worst people of all time.
He's not even just in the slightly annoying category.
He's one of the worst people of all time.
With what he did in this past year.
It's fresh. You know, and by the way, have you ever heard me complain about his 1990-whatever-for-crime bill?
Have you ever heard me complain about that?
I don't. Because I give everybody a pass for what they did 20 years ago.
Maybe it made sense 20 years ago.
It wasn't part of anything I thought was important.
And he's also said it was a mistake.
So I'm very forgiving for somebody who said I made a mistake 20 years ago and I wish I hadn't.
Totally forgiving for that.
But this is fresh.
He's still saying it today.
I mean, if you asked him, he'd repeat it again today.
That person is a horrible, horrible person.
Let's see. What would be your theory, if you were a Democrat, for why there seems to be massive allegations of fraud this year, but we have not had these massive allegations of frauds in presidential elections recently, right? So why would it just be this year?
If you're a Democrat, how do you explain it?
Well, I think the way they're explaining it is that the Republicans are just making it up, right?
The only way they can explain what they're observing It's to imagine that the Republicans are just making it up, and that it didn't really happen, or if it happened, it was some low-grade stuff, not enough to change any outcome.
So that's probably the Democrat view.
Now, as I've told you, the biggest mistake that people make in their thinking about other people is to imagine that people think like you do, because we don't.
People are thinking very differently.
Let me tell you what I think Explains our observation that the Republicans are claiming massive fraud this time, but it doesn't seem to have been something that people complained about in the past.
Here it goes.
We've never had an election with this much fraud.
Now you would say to yourself, but Scott, Scott, Scott, people care about every election.
Why wouldn't there have been as much fraud last time?
I mean, people cared about Hillary, clearly.
And here's my Hypothesis.
My hypothesis is that there is pretty bad fraud in every election.
And that we just don't care.
Because we can't tell if it changed the election.
We have some sense that both parties are doing it, at least at the local level, right?
If there's anybody on here who says only Democrats play with elections at the local level...
You need to maybe look into that a little bit.
Because my guess is that at the local level, always has been some amount of fraud.
But we kind of got used to it.
It became like our baseline.
It's like, yeah, it might have determined the election.
For example, they would say, some historians would say that Kennedy's election probably turned on fraud.
I think you would see the same claim for at least a few other elections in the past, probably some Senate elections, etc.
But what is different about this time is that the media had decided that Trump was Hitler, and so the motivation for fraud was through the roof, right?
But again, I tell you, even if you thought he was Hitler, probably every election The side wanted their side to win and wanted it badly.
So even if they thought he was Hiller, the people who actually could rig an election, they probably had all the motivation they needed every other year too, right?
You don't need to stop Hiller if you just want your person to win.
That's probably enough to cheat.
But why would there be so much more cheating, hypothetically, if that happened?
Why would there be so much more this year?
Is it just because Trump is extra bad?
Here's my hypothesis.
This is the first year that the cheaters could be sure that the press would cover for them.
You feel that?
In any prior year, you couldn't be sure that the press would cover your tracks.
Because even CNN, in a prior election and years gone by, I feel like they would have covered the story.
They would have said, here's a story.
We don't know if it's true, but there's this big allegations of mischief.
We're going to put some of our reporters on it, too, and they'll dig in a little bit, too.
So we'll not only report the story, but we'll dig into it, because it's a pretty important thing.
But if you were going to cheat in this election, you could know with complete confidence that even if you were detected, which looks exactly like what happened...
The press would tell the country it didn't happen.
And you could just walk.
And likewise, there probably are lots of local law enforcement type people who are enough pro-Biden or anti-Trump to simply look the other way.
So I don't think there's ever been an election where you had this much motivation.
But again, I don't think it was the motivation that was the key variable.
I think the key variable is knowing that this is the first year There's no chance of going to jail.
That you can just do whatever you want and the press will cover your tracks.
So that's my explanation of observation.
Doesn't mean it's right, but it explains our observation.
And then I have this question for you.
If you have a situation where the press, that seems to be the dominant press, is on the same team as one of the political parties, And that's clearly the case.
The press is on the side of the Democrats.
Why do you need press anymore?
What would be the purpose of the press in a situation where they're siding with one of the teams?
There's no point. The press has actually become irrelevant because they took a side.
The moment they take a side, they don't have any point.
There's just no point to having a press.
Alright, that's all for now.
I'll talk to you tomorrow.
Okay, YouTubers, I've turned off Periscope.
I probably have 2% battery left on this device.
And yeah, the press is brainwashing.
That is correct. You know, as a student of persuasion, I am fascinated by watching this major national psyop.
And I also said, I don't remember if I said this in a tweet or said it yesterday on Periscope, but you can see the network of operatives by which ones are doing what.
So if you see Jake Tapper telling the same story that, say, John Brennan would want you to hear.
You might imagine that they may not be directly connected, but they're operating with the same set of operation manuals, if you will.
So that's all we got.
Yeah, Sidney Powell is being very interesting right now because she's making the most aggressive claims about the election being rigged.
Now, one of the reasons that I think that The Republicans are able to go full-on claims of rigging the election is I think that Trump Can simply do things that regular Republicans can't.
Because I think if you're a regular Republican, you don't want the election to be looked at too closely.
Because you know there's going to be some Republican mischief in that bunch too.
And maybe you're just like, ah, they cheated better than we did this year.
We'll get them next year.
So I got a feeling that you'd have to be Trump to even open up the question of whether this election was rigged.
