Episode 1186 Scott Adams: I Tell You How Democracy is Apparently an Illusion
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Software gatekeepers and political preferences
SPLC "Right Wing Social Media Performer"
Christiane Amanpour's suppressive fire
Every type of vote cheating possible
Throughly corrupt city governments
3 conditions that guarantee 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
Bum bum bum bum Bum bum bum bum Bum bum bum Hey everybody Come on in!
It's time! It's time again!
For the best part of the day, it's Coffee with Scott Adams.
Yes. Now I hear from some of you that this is the part of the program you hate the most.
You hate it when I do the simultaneous sip.
Some of you. Some of you love it.
But, Those of you who hate it, you know that part of the reason I do it is that you can visually tell where to fast forward to.
That's right. It's for your benefit, even if you don't like it.
And all you need to do to enjoy the simultaneous sip is, well, you need to get yourself a cup or mug or glass, a tank or 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 of the dopamine here of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and watch it happen right now.
Uh-huh, uh-huh.
That was a good one.
Every single time.
Now, let us go through the things that are happening.
There are many things happening in the news.
Would you like the fun things first?
Okay. Here's an idea from Randall Parker on the internet, on Twitter.
And Randall says, why don't we test the coronavirus vaccines on cruise ships?
To which my brain says, boing!
Yeah. Why don't we test the coronavirus vaccine on cruise ships?
Can you think of a better idea than that?
That's literally one of the best ideas of the entire coronavirus situation.
Now, there might be some medical reason you can't do that, but I can't think of a better deal than getting a cruise and testing the vaccine at the same time.
It feels like a natural thing to do.
All right. I was reading some of the YouTube comments on these So I don't get to see them all as they're screaming by.
I see as many as I can.
But I was reading them after the fact this morning, and boy, you can't fully understand how little people understand you, what you're saying, until you read comments about yourself.
It's the damnedest experience, and one that I think gives me an advantage in understanding people.
Imagine if you go through life, and you have normal amount of conversations with people and interactions, and in your mind you think to yourself, well, obviously they understood what I said, because it was so simple.
I communicated clearly, said what I wanted to say, it appeared they were listening, and when I walked away, I think they understood what I said.
That's sort of the illusion that you're under all the time, because if you weren't under that illusion, you would go nuts.
You wouldn't know how to operate in life.
But if you say a bunch of things, and then you have this unique experience that I have every day, which is I can see what people's reaction is to the totally simple and non-provocative things that I'm saying, and it's just crazy shit.
And until you see how crazy...
Ordinary people can respond to your very simple and non-controversial statements.
You don't really know how crazy the world is.
You see it a little bit on Twitter, but when you're the focus of those comments, you really see the craziness.
All right. For reasons that I don't fully understand...
My audience is just going through the roof.
Now, I'd like to say it's because of the excellent content which I provide every day.
But my content isn't that much better than last year.
I thought it was pretty good last year, or at least as good as this year.
But the traffic went from a baseline of, this is YouTube in particular I'm talking about, to just, it went straight up and just went through the roof.
Now, I think that YouTube probably figured out their algorithm, because as much as you think they're...
They might be suppressing conservative voices, and I imagine there's some of that going on, that they also want to monetize as much as they can.
And it's harder for them to monetize anything that has keywords in it that advertisers don't like.
So if you use any of those keywords, the algorithm isn't smart enough to make a logical decision that, oh yeah, they use the keywords, but it's not really that provocative.
They're just talking about something.
So I think they may have gotten on top of that.
So suddenly my YouTube traffic is through the roof, and at the same time my Twitter followers just screamed past 600,000 in the last month.
And I've said that your ability to change the world It's a combination of your effectiveness or your persuasive skill and your reach, how many people you can get to.
So I'm a trained persuader, as you know.
So I've studied persuasion.
I'm a trained hypnotist. So if you take that kind of skill set, whether it's me or anybody who has a similar talent stack, And you let them have access to lots and lots of people.
It's a pretty big force to be reckoned with.
You just put reach and talent together and suddenly things can happen.
And I've tongue-in-cheek estimated that if I ever reached one million Twitter followers, that I could effectively control the world.
Now, there's no magic to one million.
It's just a big round number, so I wouldn't take that too seriously.
But the estimate...
On one estimator is that at my current rate, I would have 1 million Twitter followers by, I think, August of 2021.
So what's going to happen if I have more Twitter followers?
I'm actually curious myself.
Because if you've been watching me for this election cycle and longer, You've seen instances in which I can move the needle, or it looks like it.
There are things that even right now I can sort of cause to change in the world.
But what happens if I have a million followers?
Does it increase?
I think it does.
Why wouldn't it? So we'll see what happens there.
Yeah, and there are a lot of people who have millions of followers, but what they don't have is a persuasion talent stack.
But if they did, what would happen?
Tim, over on the Locals platform, where I have my stuff you don't get to see publicly, over there it's Locals.com.
By the way, it's a subscription service, so you can see more of my stuff, especially on goals and systems versus goals and how to succeed.
I put that stuff over there.
Anyway, Tim, over on Locals, points out that Joe Biden's middle name, and I'm not making this up, Robinette.
R-O-B-I-N-E-T-T-E. Interesting name.
But as Tim points out, the way you read it is Robinette.
Joe Robinette Biden.
And it kind of looks, at least to Trump supporters, like he's sort of stealing the election.
And his middle name is Robinette.
What are the odds that the guy stealing the election, according to Trump supporters, whose middle name would be Robinette?
Joe, are you trying to steal this election?
My middle name is Robinette.
I mean, what am I going to do?
I saw a story that I believe has low credibility, so can you keep this in mind before I tell you this story?
Put your low credibility filter on this.
It's just something I saw on the internet, but I think it's It's interesting enough that even though the likelihood that it's true might be low-ish, not zero, but maybe 50-50.
I wouldn't give this more than a 50% chance of being true, but it goes like this.
That one of the founders and key people at Dominion Voting Systems The voting software that people are suspecting of mischief, which has not been demonstrated at this point.
At least publicly has not been demonstrated.
Publicly? Not publicly.
I have not seen anything that would be considered proof that there is mischief in the voting systems.
So I say this to avoid being cancelled on the internet.
So let me say it again.
I have not personally Seeing something that I could personally validate as any kind of proof that there's anything wrong with our voting system.
Okay? We'll say more about this, but I want to be careful about what I say next.
So the accusation is, and this comes from PT News, some conservative website, so who knows?
And then also conservative daily podcast host, Joe Altman.
I think he's already been banned from Twitter or suspended or something.
So that's the level of information we're dealing with.
One of the people has been suspended from Twitter.
But the accusation is that one of the founders of the Dominion voting systems is Antifa-friendly.
Not a member, but there are some tweets.
That some people suggest are Antifa-friendly.
But I don't make that claim because I don't think it's, you know, I don't see it myself.
But he's one of the, and I'm not even going to say his name, but one of the principals in that company graduated from the University of California at Berkeley.
One of my alma mater.
And here's the question.
He's an American.
Right? So, don't you think that 100% of Americans have a strong opinion about politics this year?
Maybe not every year before that, but is it fair to say that whoever are the executives, and they're Americans apparently, whoever these American founders and executives of this voting system, don't you think they have strong opinions?
Wouldn't you say? I would say that they're just like everybody else.
There's no reason to think that you and I and every single person you know has a strong opinion about who should be president, but they're the only ones who don't?
I mean, that's not believable.
So we have a system in which the people who are the gatekeepers of the software, the system that will tell us who won, Have a real strong interest in one person winning versus the other, only because they're human.
I'm not even making a comment about any specific people, and I think the allegations about Antifa is probably an interpretation as opposed to, you know, any smoking gun sort of thing.
But how do we live with a system in which the principles have a strong, let's say, incentive To rig the system.
I'm not saying they did.
I'm saying that they have a strong incentive and clearly have the capability.
If you have both the capability and a very strong incentive, is that a system that you would call credible?
Would you trust that voting system?
If it's the only thing you knew is that the people who had access to the inner gears of it had a strong preference of who won.
That's all you know. Thank you for that little tip, which is not so tip.
I certainly noticed that.
You're much too kind, and I appreciate it.
So, there's that.
It seems to me that democracy is now clearly just an illusion, with the exception of extreme cases.
If you have a case where somebody wins an election 70 to 30, that probably is the will of the people being expressed.
But most of our elections, at least at the federal level, the ones that matter seem to be really close.
Is it not fair to say that any close election in this country is no longer about the voters?
Because you've got your persuasion brainwashing going on in the media, And that's not really about the will of the people, because the will of the people is being circumvented by brainwashing.
That's what brainwashing is.
It is removing the will of the person and replacing it with the will of somebody else.
So you know we've got brainwashing.
You know you've got all these legal machinations, including Pennsylvania.
Maybe 10,000 votes have been reversed because of a technical legal ruling.
May or may not matter in the long run.
But It feels like it doesn't have anything to do with voting anymore, right?
You've got your foreign interference, you've got your social media memes, you've got your conservatives maybe being throttled.
This all makes a difference.
You've got the timing of things, you've got the coronavirus changed the mechanism of voting, which definitely changed the result.
So the only thing that didn't matter was the voters.
Wouldn't you say that the only thing that didn't matter in this presidential election is the voters?
We literally didn't matter at all.
It's now just a trickster competition.
Can the lawyers be more clever than the fraudsters at the same time that the persuaders and the brainwashers are brainwashing you while the lawyers are lawyering and the tricksters are hiding?
That's all it is now.
There's nothing left of the republic slash democratic process.
It's gone. Now, it still exists for any situation that's, you know, unbalanced.
Like I said, if one candidate got 90% of the votes, it wouldn't matter what the news was saying, it wouldn't matter anything else, because the voters would have the power in that situation.
But not this situation.
Not where you can't even tell who won a week after the election.
That's a situation in which democracy is well and completely gone.
But I don't know that it's bad.
Isn't that weird? Let me say the other thing that maybe I'm the only person in the United States who would say this next thing.
If you have a presidential election where it's legitimately close, Meaning that the will of the people is pretty split.
Let's say one person gets 51 and the other gets 49.
But what if, what if that little difference that made a winner versus a loser, what if that little difference was fraud?
What if? Are you worse off?
Is the country, could you say, with confidence?
That the country is worse off because it got the 49% vote-getter versus the 51%.
Not really.
It's not like the voters were so smart that they knew which one would do the better job.
41 to 59 says that the voters have no idea who would be better.
They have no idea, right?
So anyway, I'm sure I had some other point there, but let's move on.
Part of this gigantic brainwashing operation involves marginalizing anybody who's complaining about the outcome, right?
So if you raise your hand or you put your head up above the foxhole and you're saying, you know, I would like to have a little bit of an audit on this result, Or maybe we should do a little recount.
Or I suspect there might have been some fraud.
We should just look into it.
If you say something like that, you are opposing the system, which wants a Biden victory and it wants it to be clean, you will be targeted.
So do you think I have been targeted?
Does anybody think that the powers that You know, persuade.
Do you think that they will target me?
Because I seem to be supportive of the president.
And the answer is, the SPLC just labeled me a right-wing social media performer and included me in a, obviously, the SPLC, Southern Poverty Law Center.
Their job is finding hate groups and And reporting it to social media platforms, etc., so that those platforms can cancel those hate groups.
So now, I've just been put in an article with the president, because the president tweeted something I said on the topic.
So now, I'm not on a hate group, right?
So the SPLC doesn't have me on a hate group.
But if you were to Google my name, It would now come up, I suppose you'd have to look down a few results, but you would see that I'm described by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a group whose primary mission is to find hate groups, and they have an article that includes me now.
And they called me, as I said, a right-wing social media performer.
Is that accurate?
Would you call me a right-wing social media performer?
Politically, I'm left of Bernie.
But my audience is definitely conservative, so that part is true.
It's sort of a clever way to get me on the hate list without any evidence that I belong on a hate list.
You see what I mean? Do you see how cleverly they're marginalizing me?
At the same time that CNN had Christiane Amanpour do, I guess, a big piece, In which he compared Trump and presumably his supporters to Hitler with images of Hitler doing stuff and Kristallnacht.
And this is an actual legitimate CNN opinion piece with images and pictures comparing Trump's, you know, whatever actions he's taken lately and presumably his supporters as actual Nazis.
Now, why did they do that?
Is it because they think that is an accurate description of what is happening?
Can't read minds, so I don't know for sure, but I doubt it.
I kind of doubt it.
I believe this is suppressive fire.
The point of it is to make sure that if you were thinking of raising your hand or coming out of the foxhole and saying, you know, I've now seen enough that even I'm starting to doubt this election...
Credibility. I didn't before, but now I'm starting to doubt it myself.
Would you come out of your foxhole if you've been labeled a Nazi sympathizer by CNN? Because that's what's happening, right?
That's exactly what's happening.
They're making sure you would be labeled as a Nazi if you disagree with the outcome, which is clearly a non-credible outcome.
Non-credible in the sense that I was just describing Which is, it's a competition with tricksters and fraudsters and lawyers and rule makers and persuaders.
It has nothing to do with democracy anymore.
So that's just an illusion on top of it.
The Department of Homeland Security is getting in on the action.
Listen to the specificity of this statement, because it's funny.
So the Department of Homeland Security says, they issued a statement saying, That the 2020 election was, and I quote, the most secure election in history.
Do you think that's true?
Do you think that the 2020 election was the most secure system in history?
Now, I assume that they mean American history, right?
Maybe it means world history, but let's take it in the smallest meaning of American history.
Do you think it could be true that 2020 was the most secure election in history?
I do. I believe that completely.
I think that is completely true, and I'll bet you could even objectively prove it.
I'll bet if anybody challenged this claim that this was the most secure election in history, I'll bet they could prove that.
I'll bet they would say, look, this used to be less secure, and we fixed this, or we checked this, or we're using this kind of system, and it's better than the old system.
I'll bet it's true. I'll bet it is the most secure election in history.
I also believe it was fraudulent.
Those two things can be the same.
Do you believe that our elections have been fair in history?
Do you think we've ever had a fair election in this country?
My guess is no.
My guess is we've never had one.
We just didn't know it.
Here's my theory about why the inner cities are doing so poorly.
Without getting into detail, I have just enough personal experience to know That you really can't work with these cities, even if you wanted to help, you can't really work with the cities because the local city governments are completely corrupt.
They're just thoroughly corrupt.
Now, how do you get inner cities that are thoroughly corrupt and it lasts for years?
Wouldn't you expect that a thoroughly corrupt government would do a bad job, everybody would see it was a bad job, Hey, the murders are going up, and the economy is going down, and there are people on the streets.
Everybody would notice if the government did a bad job.
You couldn't not notice it.
So how would you explain the governments that do not just a bad job, but a horrible job?
I mean, the worst job you could possibly do for years and years and years and years, and their party still gets elected.
How do you explain that?
There's only one explanation.
The free market would have eliminated the bad politicians eventually.
Maybe not in four years, but we're talking about decades.
Over a period of decades, bad people would be replaced under a democratic system where you could see the results of their work.
Oh, that's not good work.
I guess we'll vote for somebody else.
The fact that that hasn't happened...
In decades, pretty much guarantees that we've never had fair elections, at least at the local level.
Now, if the local level, you could say, at least from an observational standpoint, without the benefit of having specific evidence in my hand, it seems obvious that none of these city local elections have been fair, maybe for decades.
What are the odds that all of those local ones would be fixed, but the national ones would not be?
What are the odds of that?
If the only thing you knew was that each of the local city elections were rigged, if you knew that was true, let's take that as a hypothetical, if you knew it was true, why would you believe the national elections had not fallen to the same thing?
It wouldn't make sense.
Of course it would. If it works locally, you just do the same thing you're doing locally when there's a national election.
Do you know what it looks like when you vote locally?
Let me give you an example.
Here's the ballot box.
This will be conceptual. Here's your vote.
Here's you sticking it in.
That's what a local election looks like.
What does a national election look like?
Same ballot box, same voter.
Here's your vote for the national election.
Put it in the box.
It's the same frickin' thing.
How in the world would people who are fixing one local election after another not fix the national election?
Of course they would. Of course they would.
Has it ever happened? Now, wouldn't you say to yourself, Scott, Scott, Scott, we're being told repeatedly and from all the right people, the people who actually would know, you'd think, that there is not any widespread fraud of the kind you're talking about.
It just doesn't exist. So, if that were true, you certainly would not have any examples of it.
Because if it doesn't exist, how could you have an example of it?
Well, here's an example of something that doesn't exist.
You've got a former Philadelphia election official has pleaded guilty to taking thousands of dollars in bribes to stuff the ballot boxes for Democrats in local races between 2014 and 2016.
So this is not about this election.
But 2014 through 2016, not too long ago, not too long ago, was it?
He's pleaded guilty.
So there's no longer any question about whether it happened.
He's charged with the crime.
He pleaded guilty. You certainly wouldn't plead guilty to stuffing ballot boxes if he didn't do it.
Who would plead guilty to that?
Because unless they have pretty darn good evidence, you're not going to go to jail for not stuffing ballot boxes just because they said you did.
So I think we could say that in Philadelphia, coincidentally, within one of the states that are close for Trump, that in 2014 and 2016, we do know that somebody took thousands of dollars to stuff ballot boxes for Democrats.
So I would say that that's now just a fact.
Why would somebody pay anybody thousands of dollars to stuff a ballot box?
Would you do it because you think it works?
Maybe? Would that be the reason?
Because you think it works?
So obviously the guy who stuffed the ballot boxes, he probably thinks it works.
The people who paid him, they think it works.
Why do all these people think it works?
What do they know that you don't know?
Now, he did get caught, but do you think that the guy who got caught and pleaded guilty to stuffing the ballot boxes, do you think that there's something natural in the way that voting works that he had to get caught?
In other words, is this an example of the opposite of what you think?
Could it be that That the system for catching cheaters is so good that this one guy who tried to cheat, well, it was pretty dumb of you, one guy, because we caught you.
So maybe this one example of this guy is the only one, right?
Maybe we caught the only guy who tried.
Do you believe that? In all of your experience on this earth, do you believe we caught the one guy?
No. No, there's no chance he's the one guy.
There's no chance of that.
Do I have evidence of that?
Can I prove that there are more like this guy?
Nope. Don't have any.
But I have been alive for a while.
I have existed in the real world.
And let me tell you something that I've said before, but it's good to reinforce it.
That whenever you have the following situation, you can predict what's going to come out of it.
And the following situation is, you've got an opportunity to cheat, so there's an opportunity it can be done.
The Philadelphia example shows you that it can be done, right?
And I would guess that not all the people who did it got caught, but it can be done.
It also has a gigantic upside potential.
What would be bigger than changing who is the president, right?
So the potential upside is great, and there are a lot of people involved.
Now, the reason I add that one is, if you only had one person who had the opportunity to cheat, and nobody else could do it, it was just that one person, you could find that you found the only honest person, or the one person who didn't have an incentive to cheat, perhaps.
So if it was only one person, you'd say, well, it might be fair.
Maybe you got a fair person in there.
But if you have a lot of people, as you do in an election, there's always somebody who's willing to cheat, 100% of the time.
100%. Not 99.9%.
100% of the time.
As long as you have enough people involved in the system.
So that describes our election system.
Very high upside from winning.
Pretty low chance of getting caught, apparently.
And lots of people involved.
Under those conditions, massive fraud should happen every time.
Every time. As long as those conditions are met, You can't even stop fraud.
It's pretty much guaranteed.
You just don't know how much.
Now, over time, you'd expect that if it works on a small scale, that it would grow, right?
But it can't grow beyond the point where you'd notice it, right?
So your fraud only works if you know to take it, well, up to the point of winning, but not beyond that point.
You don't want to overshoot the mark because then it's just a little too obvious, right?
Well, here's one hypothesis of what we observed in this election.
Probably, there are lots of different ways that one could cheat in an election.
Hypothetically, you could get into the software.
You could create fake, maybe fake ballots.
You could count ballots that shouldn't be counted.
And I could probably list a half a dozen other ways that You could cheat if you were inclined to do that.
I'm guessing that because this president, Trump, was painted by the press as a Hitler existential threat, my guess is that every one of those ways of cheating were activated this year.
So if you're saying to yourself, Which way did they cheat?
You're probably asking the wrong question.
In all likelihood, everybody who knew how to cheat in a certain way did it.
So if there was anybody who knew how to cheat with software, they did it.
If there was anybody who knew how to cheat by getting dead people to vote, they did it.
If there's anybody who knew how to get fake ballots printed, and I don't know if any of this is possible, by the way, I'm just saying that if any of it were possible, oh, it happened.
It happened. And again, it couldn't not happen.
It couldn't not happen.
Because the incentive and the opportunity were off the chart.
There's never been this much incentive to rig an election.
Never close in the United States.
You know, maybe if Hitler had run for office, you know, maybe there'd be that much incentive to get rid of him.
But Trump was painted as Hitler.
Of course the Democrats cheated.
And let me say this.
If they believed, if the Democrats believed Their own news, and they actually thought that Trump was all the things that the news says about him.
If they believed that sincerely, and I think they did, I do believe that they thought that sincerely, they are patriots.
They're patriots.
Wouldn't you cheat?
Reverse the situation and put yourself in it.
Let's say you had come to believe that Joe Biden was literally the devil.
Not figuratively, literally.
He was the devil come back to the earth.
And you were sure that was true.
Would you, if you had the ability, would you rig the election to keep Satan from being elected?
Of course you would!
Why? Because you're a patriot.
That's why. Of course you would look to save the world.
Because you're a good person.
You're a good person. Of course you would.
So here's the thing that you could almost guarantee is true.
That the incentive for cheating was higher than it's ever been.
The opportunity for cheating certainly exists.
You would have to be a fucking idiot to think the opportunity doesn't exist.
Now, you also have the press will cover for your For your deeds.
Now, what would you expect to see if my hypothesis is true?
What signals would be there to say, ah, you might be right about this, Scott.
It might be cheating in every way possible and it all happened.
Well, one thing you'd expect to see is that Biden would get more votes than anybody ever got.
Because the people doing the individual cheating wouldn't know how much cheating the other cheaters were doing.
Because I doubt that they had meetings, right?
Do you think that the people who knew how to, let's say, get fake ballots, if that's a thing, do you think that those cheaters were having a meeting with, hypothetically, if such people existed, people who were tweaking the software?
No, they don't even know each other.
They're just people who know what they need to do.
Everybody knows that you need to get rid of Hitler.
Do you need a meeting, like an agenda?
Item three on the agenda, let's agree to get rid of Hitler.
No, you don't need a meeting for that.
You just do what you're going to do.
So, indeed, we've got a Joe Biden with a suspiciously high number of votes.
Suspiciously. So suspiciously that I don't think it could possibly be true.
Might be, right?
I guess you can't rule it out.
Because there was so much demonization of Trump that you could say to yourself, all right, well, they were so afraid of Trump that it was the highest turnout of all time.
But I don't believe that it would be that much higher than Obama.
Do you? Because Obama was more of a positive thing.
It's like, hey, let's get ourselves an Obama president, people said.
So I guess Arizona has been called, by the media anyway, for Biden.
There's 11,000 vote difference.
Do you think that there's any fraud in Arizona that would be big enough to cover 11 over 11,000, 11.5 thousand votes?
Does that sound within the realm of doable?
It's completely within the realm of doable.
The thing that the fake media has been brainwashing you is to think that past elections are an indication of this election.
Everything I just told you tells you that whatever happened this election is definitely not like any other election.
So when the fake media says, we've done recounts before, and they only turn up a few hundred So, why bother thinking it could change this time?
Because a few hundred is much less than the 11.5 thousand or so you might need in Arizona.
But... How many of those mail-in votes do you think can be eliminated if you actually followed the letter of the law?
So I assume that in every state the law is very specific about how it must be filled out and what time it must be received.
Do you think they can find over 11,000 physical ballots that have something improper on it That would eliminate it according to the laws of the own state.
What are the odds of that?
If I had to put the odds on that, it's close to 100%.
Because 11,000 just isn't much if you're looking at all of the ballots that were mailed in to the state.
We've never had this many mail-in ballots, and that's where all the problems are.
So if you take the mail-in ballots that have been rejected, and let's say, I'll just put a fake number on it, let's say it was 1% were rejected, you don't think that a recount where you're really looking to see if the ballot should be counted or not, you don't think they can find 11,000 of those?
Bet they can. I'll bet they can.
So how about Georgia?
14,000. Same thing.
You don't think that in Georgia you can find 14,000 ballots that have the wrong address or they forgot the address or signature doesn't match or something like that?
Of course they can.
I don't even think it's going to be hard.
I don't think it'll be hard.
And by the way, you wouldn't even have to find any fraud.
It looks to me like Arizona and Georgia are both close enough that if all you did is look at the ballots and be a little bit more restrictive about which ones were accepted, still compatible with the law, but just more compatible with the law, I feel like they're both going to flip.
Now, that's not even counting any fraud that may have been alleged, right?
I have increased the slaughter meter to 95% based on these presumptions.
My presumptions being that large fraud is guaranteed under these circumstances.
The fact that it has not been presented to the public yet, which is true, by the way.
If you're a member of the public, you probably have not seen Really good evidence of fraud.
Would that be fair to say?
You've seen lots of things zooming around the internet that you don't know if it's true or not.
But that's probably not technically untrue that the public hasn't seen that.
But you will.
I can promise you you're going to see more.
So that's the only thing I can promise you for sure.
That what you've seen so far...
Isn't really close to what you're going to see.
And it's going to happen fairly quickly, the next week or two.
All right, now, so Trump tweeted, and again, this is a Trump tweet, so you don't know what the source is, etc.
He said there's a report, again, we don't know how credible, Or you don't know how credible.
The Dominion deleted 2.7 million Trump votes nationwide.
Trump says that data analysis finds 221,000 Pennsylvania votes switched from Trump to Biden and 941,000 Trump votes deleted.
And that states using Dominion voting systems switched 435,000 votes from Trump to Biden.
Now, Would you say that those are all proven statements?
No. No. These statements are not proven.
But here's what they do.
They change the argument.
Do you remember what the old argument was?
The old argument was, well, yeah, there's always a little bit of fraud.
But it's not going to change these elections that are off by tens of thousands.
You know, you get a few hundred, a little bit of fraud, a couple of stuffed ballot boxes.
If you add it all together, it's just nothing anyway.
Why are you wasting our time?
Well, Trump has changed the argument.
Now, you could still say, of course, it's either true or false, the claims that he's making.
They could be false.
They could be true. But they're big.
So the old argument of all the things that are being claimed are too small to make a difference, that's out the window.
Now, if this claim is true, the election was definitely stolen.
And if these claims are not true, well, then you're back to show me the proof.
So let's find out.
I think we're heading toward this weirdest situation in the world in which the most important person On the planet will be the facilities manager for the White House.
Every big building has somebody who's like a facilities manager.
And they're the ones who tell you you can move an office, you can get your phones installed, you can put your name on the door.
They're the ones who make sure you have a chair.
They're the ones who decide what office goes to whom.
What's going to happen if Trump approves his case And Biden gets sworn in anyway.
Because I think that's going to happen.
I think we're heading toward a place where the media has gotten so powerful that Trump could prove his case, that the election was stolen, and they will just report that it didn't happen.
And they will just act like Biden is the official winner.
And I think we'll have two presidents.
And the only person who's going to matter is the facilities manager.
Because whoever moves into the White House, you're going to treat as your president.
Right? Because you're going to act, at least in terms of the way your mind is organized, whoever's in the White House is going to be the president.
So what happens if the facilities manager is asked by the Biden team, hey, look, Biden's obviously your president.
He was just sworn in.
So let's move all these Trump offices out, and we'll be moving in, and can you give us a schedule when that's going to happen?
And then Trump goes to the facilities manager and says, we just proved we won the election.
Here's the votes. The court just ruled for us.
We have more votes in the electoral college.
It's not my fault if they swore in the wrong person.
I'm the president. Now what does the facilities manager do?
Would the military get involved?
I think no.
I think our military, and this is the most, I guess this is the biggest compliment you can give your own military.
They would never attack citizens.
It just can't happen.
So I don't think the military would be involved.
Is there any, like, local, obviously there's local security, you know, for the White House.
What would they do? What would they do?
I have no idea.
I think they would say to the facilities manager, we've got competing claims.
What do we do? And the facilities manager will decide who is the president of the United States.
Now, if you've worked for a big company, you're laughing right now because you know that this is closer to actually being true.
Then anybody who has no experience with a big company realizes.
Let me tell you something else you didn't realize.
Whoever writes the speeches for a politician has a lot of power.
Because the way you word things, if you word things in a way that the public picks up on and they like and then the news likes it, you've determined the policy.
Because if something works, the politician will do more of it.
So it's the speechwriter who's trying stuff out.
Well, let's try this. Let's try this framing.
If something works, they do more of it.
So the speechwriter, like the facilities manager in my example, you don't realize it, but their power is extraordinary.
You might pick your next president, he or she.
Apparently the Trump Accountability Project is dead.
They were going to make a blacklist of people who had helped the president, and those people would be marked for destruction, career destruction.
Nobody would ever hire them again.
I guess they decided not to do that.
Their explanation is because Biden called for unity.
And I thought to myself, you had to wait for Biden to call for unity to decide that was a bad idea?
Feels like a cover story.
I think they realized it was a bad idea based on the response to it, which is that it turned them into Nazis.
Everything's a Nazi. Everybody's a Nazi.
Here are some of the things that the media has disappeared.
And to me, this is the most interesting part of the whole story, is that the media can disappear a story.
And they've demonstrated that now.
So Glenn Greenwald, writing on Substack, because he...
He's no longer with The Intercept, because I guess he was too honest.
He said that he was talking about the fact that CNN still puts Adam Schiff on television and listens to him uncritically.
And this is something from Greenwald.
You need to follow him.
He's terrific as a writer.
He says, Wolf Blitzer asked...
Who was he talking to?
Let's see, he was talking to Adam Schiff.
So Wolf Blitzer talking to Adam Schiff, and he asks Adam Schiff this rhetorical question.
See if you think this sounds like a fair question, right?
He goes, this is just hilariously, it's just so bad.
So Wolf Blitzer says to Adam Schiff, does it surprise you at all that this information Rudy Giuliani is peddling is Very well could be connected to some sort of Russian government disinformation campaign.
Talk about leading the witness that it could very well be connected.
Everything could very well be connected to something.
How about some evidence?
This is the news.
You don't just say something could very well be connected to something with no evidence whatsoever.
But he did. And this is what Schiff replied to that.
He stated definitively that, quote, We know, we know that this whole smear on Joe Biden, and this was talking about the Hunter Biden stuff, comes from the Kremlin.
And he added, clearly the origins of this whole smear are from the Kremlin, and the president is only too happy to have Kremlin helping him amplify it.
And he goes on, there it is in the Oval Office, another wonderful propaganda coup for Vladimir Putin.
Seeing the President of the United States holding up a newspaper promoting Kremlin propaganda.
Now, what evidence does Adam Schiff have of any Kremlin involvement?
None. And they put that asshole on TV to tell their viewers that the Kremlin is behind this.
Completely made up.
And of course he was even prompted by Wolf Blitzer.
Now this is an example of brainwashing and propaganda.
It's not even close to news.
But the thing that's funny, and I'm going to say something that will be hilarious to people who have watched the show, what we do in the shadows.
If you haven't seen that show, the next thing I say won't sound that hilarious.
But if you have seen it, you're going to like this.
When I think about Clapper and Brennan and Adam Schiff, I see that show, What We Do in the Shadows, and I see Adam Schiff as their familiar.
Now, if you hear Adam Schiff as the familiar for Clapper and Brennan, and if that isn't funny to you, well, you've never seen that TV show, but you should.
All right. The other things that they've made disappear, just think about this.
Where is the story about British interference in the 2016 election?
It just sort of didn't happen, did it?
But yet we had this Christopher Steele, an ex-intelligence person from Great Britain.
You've got all these Great Britain connections.
If you're a consumer of the news, it's completely obvious that Great Britain interfered in our election.
Completely obvious. But if the news doesn't make it a story, it just sort of disappears.
So they can just disappear the whole British involvement in our election.
Oh well. How about this one?
How about the fact that this election apparently had no allegations of Russian or Chinese interference?
How'd that disappear?
How did Russia and China just stop interfering for the first time ever?
And the news is treating it like it doesn't exist.
Because if they did, then maybe you would question Biden's legitimacy, and they don't want that to happen.
So how mind-boggling is it that they made foreign interference in our election just disappear?
They just disappeared it.
That is the scariest.
That is some scary stuff.
All right. Here's some other stories of Trump supporters being taken out.
So in Pennsylvania, Joel Pollack reports this in Breitbart, that Pennsylvania, some of the lawyers, there are lots of lawyers working on stuff, but some of the lawyers withdrew from helping Trump on the Pennsylvania challenges because they got too much pressure from the press and the public.
So even helping Trump on the legal challenge, which everybody agrees is acceptable, it's completely acceptable to do a legal challenge, right?
That's the most acceptable thing you could do in the world.
The whole point of the legal system is to be used exactly in these situations.
So these people just doing their job, the job of being lawyers, were sort of forced out of helping Trump Just because of politics.
And that, of course, could be disappeared too if Joel hadn't done the story.
You wouldn't have even known about it.
Here's another one. Here's something else the press disappears.
And this comment was on Twitter by David Boxenhorne.
And he asks this question.
And it'll make you laugh when you hear it, or it should, because you didn't think of it.
He says, why is it that we never hear about the good things that are happening because of climate change?
Surely there must be some.
Of course there are.
The point of climate change...
Is that not everything is just getting worse, but rather the claim is that some places would get worse, but by coincidence, some places would have to get better because it's all different situations.
Some of them could use a little extra warmth.
Some of them would be harmed by a little extra warmth.
So why are we only seeing stories about fires in California and hurricanes, which there's an iffy connection to any climate there, so Understand that that's disputed.
But wouldn't we also see a story about Iceland is growing a lot of weed because it's now warmer?
I'm making that one up, right?
But wouldn't you see that there was a place that became a better tourist destination?
Wouldn't you see stories about our food crop is way better because of the CO2? Right?
Where are all those stories?
There should be, for every, you know, there might be a ratio problem, but for every bad story about climate change where somebody says we're observing something that went wrong in real time, there have to be good ones.
There have to be.
In order for the climate change story to even be real, there have to be big, conspicuous, Countries that are better off.
Where are they?
Where's the story?
It's disappeared.
So foreign interference disappeared, climate change advantages, even if those advantages are far swamped by the disadvantages, surely they exist and they would be big.
That's interesting.
Here's a story that I think might be closer to fake news than real news.
Oncologist Dr. Zeke Emanuel, so he's one of the advisory members that Biden wants for his coronavirus task force, and he has suggested at some point that if a vaccine is available in the United States, Maybe it would be better if we didn't hoard it all for the United States, even if it's an American company that makes it, but rather that we should use enough in the United States to get our own R value below 1.
In other words, so that the virus won't spread easily if it gets under 1.
And then if you reach that point, then if you still have vaccine available, you might make that available intelligently to other countries.
Now that's been reported as America last.
Why would you give it to other countries?
It's an American company.
Shouldn't we take care of America first?
And obviously that's a good question to ask.
But I think the argument is more mathematical than nationalist or anti-nationalist.
I think that the argument goes that it wouldn't help you as much as you think To hoard it all in your country, if you didn't take care of your neighboring countries, there would still be enough getting in that even the vaccine wouldn't help you as much as you want.
So if you get to R1, let me put it this way.
If Canada was raging with virus, would it make more sense that we do what we can in the United States to get the R1 and then say, you know, we're not out of the woods, Until we help Canada.
Because there's just too much cross-contamination.
So maybe the little extra goes to Canada and Mexico.
Would that be smarter?
Or maybe it goes to Europe because there's lots of international travel.
So I would say I don't have an opinion on this.
But I would say, because it's purely a model decision.
It's math. It's a model.
I haven't looked at the models. But I wouldn't completely rule out That the United States would be better off if we got our value under zero and then did neighboring countries as the next logical thing.
I'm at least open to the argument.
Is anybody else open to that argument?
Am I the only one?
Because I don't think that's exactly America first or not.
I think our interests could be served, possibly.
By being a little bit more generous about helping our neighboring countries.
So I'm open to that.
But certainly, America first.
If it's a tie.
If it's a gray area.
If it's a gray area, maybe a lean America.
Alright. Those are the things that I wanted to say today.
Let me see if I forgot anything.
But I don't think it did.
Don't think it did.
Got it all. Alright, we did good today.
So, congratulations on sticking it out and making this Periscope so darn popular.
I appreciate that.
And I will talk to you tomorrow.
And you YouTubers, I'll stay with you for another minute here.
See if you have any comments or questions that...
You'd like answered. Boy, the comments go by so quickly on YouTube, it's hard to catch them.
You've really got to pay attention.
You know, the other thing, if Joe Biden goes nuts with testing, especially the cheap testing you can do at home, if he does a big push on that, I am going to say he did a better job than Trump.
So I want to warn you in advance, if any of you are Trump supporters and you're wondering where it's going.
If Biden gets in and he does more on cheap home testing approvals than Trump did, I'm going to look very favorably on that because I think that was a weakness in the Trump administration response.
But we'll see.
More lockdowns coming.
I think that's inevitable.
I went to a restaurant last night and ate indoors in my local community here.
It's the first time I've been indoors in a restaurant since February, maybe?
And it was 25% capacity.
We had tons of distance from other tables, but I don't know how the restaurant stays in business.
There's no restaurant that can stay in business with 25% capacity through the holidays.
So I'm not even sure restaurants will survive through the holidays.
Yeah, the slaughter meter is 95%.
Based on the assumption that massive fraud will be discovered, but has not been presented to the public in a way you can see it yet.
I do have...
I do have sources that you might not have, and my sense of it is there's some big stuff coming pretty soon.
Have I seen Elon Musk talk about the tests?
Yeah, I'm not sure I'm on the same page with him about the tests.
Is self-hypnosis worth it?
Yeah, it's actually good stuff.
It's better than meditation.
But in order to do self-hypnosis, you almost have to be hypnotized.
The best way to learn self-hypnosis is to have somebody who is a hypnotist hypnotize you and then give you the suggestion that you can do it yourself.
That's the way I learned it.
So when I learned hypnosis, part of what we did is that the instructor hypnotized the class and then told us we could get back into that mode by hearing his voice counting 1 to 20.
And I can still do that.
Decades later, I can hear his voice.
I can count to 20.
And my body just goes down into total relaxation.
But it takes practice.
Did I get mentioned on Alex Jones yesterday?
Somebody said that I was mentioned.
Scott, can anyone be hypnotized?
The answer is yes, but not to the same level.
So anybody can be hypnotized to, let's say, learn self-hypnosis.
Anybody can be hypnotized to, let's say, be more comfortable as a public speaker, that sort of thing.
But only about 20% of the public can be hypnotized to see something that doesn't exist or to have a profound experience.
About 20%.
But everybody...
I was mentioned on Alex Jones as someone that Trump aligns with, I'm being told in the comments.
Will I please hypnotize you?
It's a lot of work.
Hypnotizing one person...
It's really a draining thing for the hypnotist.
One of the reasons I didn't want to do it professionally.
When I learned it in my early 20s, I actually had considered maybe doing it professionally.
But it's hard.
It's just not a fun day because it's very draining to put that much attention into another person.
It's a big load.
Quick tests are already available for purchase, somebody says.
I don't think that's true.
But I could be wrong.
I don't think you could buy a cheap test.
If the ones that you could buy now are probably the kind you have to mail in for a result, right?
I think that does exist.
But the kind where you can get your own result in 15 minutes without a machine is the kind we need.
Why is Trump so quiet?
Trump is only quiet in public.
I can confirm that below the hood, there's a lot going on, and he's very connected to it.
So quiet Trump is dangerous Trump, because transparent Trump, at least you know everything that's going on.
You know what he's thinking, you know what he plans to do.
So transparent Trump and loud Trump It's less scary than this Trump.
Because when he gets quiet, you don't know what's coming.
And I think what's coming is a lot of fraud allegations is what's coming.
Here's a little trick if you ever get yourself in a tense situation.
I use this same technique on people who could beat me up.
You get really quiet.
Because people who think they might be getting in a fight with you soon really don't like it if you're not talking.
Because you're talking is what gives you some clues about what they're dealing with.
Like, are you going to kill me?
Are you tougher than you look?
Are you mad enough to fight?
Are you smarter than me?
You know, there are a whole bunch of things you could learn if somebody is talking.
So if you find yourself in a situation where you're facing off, this is mostly for guys.
It doesn't matter for women, I don't think.
But for guys, if you're in that situation where somebody might start punching, if you stop talking, the other person will be scared to death.
Because they want to hear some talking.
So that's my little tip for you.
Just get real quiet, make direct eye contact, But don't talk.
