Episode 1209 Scott Adams: I Tell You How to Get the Republic Back From the AI, WW3 Progress Update, Asteroids
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Symone Sanders shameless racism
America's republic is gone, lost
Biden's call for unity with those he smeared
Kasie Hunt "grateful for being stonewalled" by Biden
World War III update, persuasion and dirty tricks
We're in a digital version of 1776
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum You know people are always asking me, they're saying, "Scott, what is the best hour of the day?" Because you've got 24 hours in a day, and people quite reasonably are saying, Is there a good one?
Is there one of those hours that's the good hour?
Yeah, there really is.
Do you know what's a bad hour of the day?
Four o'clock. Nobody likes four o'clock in the afternoon.
Bad hour. You know what's a pretty good hour?
Eight o'clock at night.
Eight o'clock at night, it's a very good hour.
But the best hour is this one.
At this very time, every single day, when coffee with Scott Adams happens, the only unifying thing in the whole world, everything else is divisive.
But you can enjoy this unity with a cup or mug or glass of tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better except Dominion Software.
It's called the Simultaneous Hip.
It happens now. Go.
Yeah, that's good.
I've been corrected that 4pm is good.
4pm, it turns out, because that includes 4.20.
So I stand corrected.
Alright, here's the most exciting news of the day.
I didn't know this was even happening.
But apparently, years ago, a spaceship was sent into deep space to find and track down an asteroid, land on the asteroid, burrow into it, Grab some dirt from below the surface of the asteroid and send it back to Earth and land it.
I mean, I don't know if land is the right word, but we got the capsule back.
I almost can't even speak those words.
That is so frickin' cool.
We put, we, humanity, I didn't have anything to do with it, we put a rocket into space that chased down an asteroid, dug a hole, took some dirt, and sent it back to Earth.
Can you believe it?
You think that's amazing?
You haven't even heard the wackiest part.
So the capsule just got back to Earth, and when they opened it, nothing but Trump ballots were Apparently a lot of Trump ballots had been buried on a distant asteroid, and it's only luck that this spaceship found them.
It makes you wonder how many other asteroids have ballots inside them, right?
Because they look like regular asteroids on the outside, but they could be hollow.
They could be. No, I'm just kidding.
There were no Trump ballots in that capsule.
It was only alien spores.
So, nothing to worry about.
Just alien spores.
I don't see how those could hurt us.
Well, we also had some news up in the state of Washington, where some MAGA people had some kind of support the police event, which was crashed by a number of Antifa, who apparently had not calculated the numbers correctly.
You know, if you're going to join Antifa, I would recommend that you have in your little group, you know, each group of little terrorists, you would have somebody who's good at math.
Because I think they got the math wrong.
Because the group of Antifa turned out to be roughly the same size as the group of MAGA supporters.
Well, it didn't go well for Antifa.
Now, I think they really need a spotter and a mathematician to kind of scope out the event and say, it looks like, I think they got 150 people at that event.
We've got 35.
Run! Run!
Run away! Yeah.
The reason that I have never been worried about Antifa taking over the country is because the minute they get out of the city, we're going to beat the shit out of them.
It's not even going to be close.
Just get out of that little city, you fucking assholes.
Just come out to the country.
Come to the suburbs.
Pay us a visit. We are going to kick your fucking asses all the way back to your little city.
Which you can have. You can keep the city.
I don't care about the city.
I don't live there. And the cities are doomed anyway.
I mean, if you think about it, between the fact that people are going to telecommute probably from now on because of the coronavirus, then you add the lawlessness and...
Who the hell would live in a city if they had a choice?
Right? Living in a city is going to turn into...
Like, what happened to your life?
You must have made really bad choices.
You live in the city?
Why would you do that?
So if you're worried about Antifa spreading from the city to the country, there were quite a few MAGA people in Washington state who would like to suggest that that won't go so well.
All right. Here's a statement that I think sums up Where we're at.
I tweeted this. I think the fake news destroyed America.
And so, unfortunately, the fake news has this weird power where they can break something, but because they're the news, they can simply report that you broke it.
Imagine if, you know, when you were growing up you had siblings.
Imagine if you had one sibling, just one of your siblings, Who had the power of the press.
So you had a sibling that could go break something, go break a window, and then when mom and dad came and said, hey, who broke the window?
Your sibling who broke the window said, well, I've been the designated news, so I'm the news organization of this family, and the news is that my sibling broke that window.
And your parents say, okay, you're the news, so it must be true.
And then you punish that other kid.
Now, would you think that was a good system?
Would that be a good system that one of the kids could simply blame the others for their own crimes and the parents would say, yeah, that's a good system.
Fine with us.
No, you would not think that was a good system.
But that's what our press has turned into.
They can literally destroy...
Well, I would argue that they destroyed the republic.
Literally, we don't live in a republic anymore.
It's some kind of bullyocracy, cheatocracy, I don't know what it is.
But it's not anywhere close to a republic.
The fake news pretty much destroyed that.
I think we'll get it back, and I'll talk about that in a moment.
But at the moment, we don't have a republic.
We have something like a zombie republic that has some outward manifestations of looking like it came from a republic, but we don't have a situation where people vote and the will of the people gets translated into their elected representatives who make decisions on their behalf.
Nothing like that's happening. That's how it was drawn up on paper, but we're not living in that system, that's for sure.
So... And imagine this.
Imagine this. If the fake news had never told you that half the country were neo-Nazis supporters.
Let's say neo-Nazis supporters.
That's what the news told you for three years.
Do you think that had any effect on the divisiveness in the country?
Being told for three years that half of us are neo-Nazi supporters?
Which, by the way, if you're new to my periscope, it's not actually true.
Turns out that the number of neo-Nazi supporters is vanishingly small among every population in the United States.
But not according to the news.
The news told you it was rampant.
Must be at least 74 million of them.
Imagine if the fake news had been credible enough that it didn't destroy your trust in every other institution.
Because I would say that when the news fell, and the news has fallen, right, and can't get up, when the news fell and you couldn't You couldn't trust what you thought would be the gatekeepers of information.
When that last thing fell, that kind of took everything with it, didn't it?
Now, maybe you don't process it that way.
You're not consciously thinking, oh, if the news is fake, that must mean everything else is fake.
But I don't see you can separate those things.
Because once you learn that the news is literally made up, What are you going to believe about the news's report about science?
What are you going to believe when the news tells you the scientists say this is true?
Well, you're not going to believe it.
Because you don't really get to see the science, right?
When was the last time you did science?
Maybe never. The thing that we think is science is somebody else telling us what the science was.
The thing we see is the somebody else.
We see a person.
Telling us what they think they saw in the science.
We never see science.
We see some interpretation of a person who's trying, or sometimes not trying, to tell you what they saw.
Now if the news can't do that for you, or you don't trust it to do that for you, then you also have no information about science.
None. You have reports, but it's coming through a mechanism, the fake news, that has no credibility.
So, the dumbest fucking people in the world are the ones who say, follow the science, and it's a good thing I know what the science is because I heard it on the news.
That's the dumbest fucking thing you can say in 2020, is that you understand science because somebody who doesn't understand science explained science to you.
That's all you have, is people who don't understand it Telling you what they thought they saw, which isn't even close.
It's all you got.
Now, you didn't really feel that until the gatekeepers collapsed.
Until the news became completely undependable, as opposed to something that sometimes makes mistakes.
Then you realized, holy crap!
Not only can I not trust the news, but they're the only source I have For what science is telling me.
So science is gone.
It's just not something you can trust anymore because you don't have any access to it.
Now, if you had access to it and you were the kind of person who would be rare, who could judge it and, you know, you had enough wisdom and you knew the area and you could tell what was missing or maybe what they left out, you could look at the numbers.
There are people like that.
There are some people who could have a pretty valuable opinion about The quality of some science.
But you don't know those people.
I don't know any. Can your neighbor do that?
My neighbor can't.
I mean, I haven't checked, but I don't think so.
So, I'm getting to the good news later.
We'll talk about the crazy stuff.
So, Senior Advisor to Biden, Simone Sanders.
You all know Simone? She's black, which is important to the story.
Again, I'll remind you, I look so forward to the day when no story requires you to know the race of the people involved.
Like, if we ever get there where you can just tell the frickin' story and you don't have to throw in somebody's ethnicity because it doesn't matter, that will be a good day.
That day has not come.
Because the story requires you to know that Simone Sanders is black.
Because what her quote was on the news, in public, with no shame, said the following thing out loud.
She said, we don't need white people running the Democratic Party now.
Now she went on to explain what she meant, that it's a party of inclusion and Etc.
So she wanted to make the Democratic Party look like the country.
That part's good.
But how does that fit with the sentence, we don't need white people running Democratic Party now?
You would get fucking fired for saying that, wouldn't you?
Now just replace it with any other ethnicity and you get fired.
How does Simone Sanders not get fired?
Fired within an hour of saying white people shouldn't be running the Democratic Party.
How is that even possible?
It's because the fake news controls your opinions.
If we had independent opinions, we'd look at this and say, well, I'll tell you one thing.
This is one person who should not have a job doing anything important because she's just a flat-out racist.
And she's not hiding it.
I'll give her credit for being transparent.
She's not hiding her racism even a little bit.
She's saying it right out loud in direct words.
I think if you asked her to clarify, she would clarify it the same way.
Because I don't think there's any embarrassment.
There's no pushback.
This is exactly what she meant to say.
And it has been accepted by CNN and the news.
As an acceptable statement by a high official, a high advisor to the president.
It's okay. No problem.
So, that's shocking.
There's a new report on CNN, so you know it's true.
It's on CNN. That there's been continued government studies of this alleged sonic weapon that allegedly hurt people in various embassies, including Cuba.
And now they're saying that they don't believe it was a sonic attack.
They believe it more likely was a microwave energy weapon, or at least microwave energy.
They haven't identified that it was necessarily a weapon, but they feel confident it was probably microwave energy because, I don't know why, maybe the nature of the Of the damage or something.
So suppose that's true.
And I would say the odds of this being true are low.
You know, just because it's CNN and it's in this domain of things that we never really know.
We'll never really know the truth, etc.
So I wouldn't trust this at all.
I would put zero credibility on this report.
Zero. Not even a little bit.
And the reason is that this is spy stuff.
If CNN tells you a story from the government, so remember this was a government study, and the government told CNN that, you know, here's my explanation, and there's no spy stuff happening, would you believe it?
You shouldn't, because the government should not be telling CNN any spy secrets.
Because let's say we knew what this alleged weapon was, we knew it was a microwave energy or something.
Should they be telling CNN that?
I don't know. Maybe not.
It feels as if they might have looked into it a little bit further before they told CNN. So first of all, I doubt that it's a microwave energy weapon, but at least you can't rule that one out.
You know, when the sonic attack came, I quite famously and publicly said, this is a bullshit story.
Someday you will learn there was no secret sonic weapon.
Well, now that's the government's official story, is that there was no secret sonic weapon.
So maybe I got that part right.
But now they're saying, well, this might have been a microwave energy weapon.
Might have been a microwave.
Maybe. So at least we're in the realm of something I could imagine would happen.
I mean, it's possible.
I can't see a major power doing this and thinking that would be a good risk-reward, you know, attacking an embassy.
Imagine if you were a major power, or a country, just a country, and you got caught attacking an embassy.
Do you think you'd pay for that?
That's about as bad as it gets.
If there's any country that thought that was a good risk-reward, take out a couple of diplomats who would be replaced in an hour, and risk losing their whole frickin' country, because if you attacked our embassy, that's an act of war, obviously, and we would retaliate quite aggressively.
So I'm not buying the energy weapon Microwave energy weapon, unless it was a freelancer.
And even then, I'd have to know that a freelancer could build such a thing.
Maybe. Alright, there's a voter fraud map that I tweeted at the Heritage Foundation.
So you can click on your state...
And find out how many prosecuted election frauds have happened.
So everybody who thinks election fraud is really rare, or anybody who thinks it's very common, you can go there and you can actually see.
So I would say that's a really good source.
I assume it's accurate enough for this purpose.
But there are lots of examples of election fraud.
So here's something we know.
If all of those people on that list and all these states and over the years have attempted ballot fraud and got caught, why did they attempt it?
Why did so many people attempt stealing an election?
Well, obviously to win, right?
But beyond that, why did they think it would work?
Why did all those people who got caught think they could get away with it?
I'm just going to speculate now.
I think the reason that so many people thought they could get away with rigging an election is because the things they were doing were undetectable, without a coincidence.
So in other words, there was probably just some weird coincidence or You know, something popped up or somebody narked on somebody.
But I have a feeling that the people who did all of those frauds that are listed and have been actually prosecuted for, they had to know that they were doing something that wasn't witnessed.
How many of those people did their crime in front of a security camera?
Well, I don't know. But I'm guessing nobody?
Because wouldn't you know, you'd sort of check for the security cameras.
You're not going to do a crime right in front of them.
So the fact that there were so many prosecuted election frauds suggests there were probably a lot that weren't prosecuted, and probably the people who tried the crime had a reasonable expectation of getting away with it, which means there are holes in the system.
All right. Doesn't it feel like politics became a video game?
You know, if you play video games long enough, you get used to things happening on a screen and people are getting hurt and beating each other up and it's drama and stuff, but then you just walk away because it was just something on a screen.
And the news has become that thing.
It's this something on a screen, for most of us, if you're not directly, you know, in the riot or something.
And Like a video game, we all get to play, weirdly.
Because if you can tweet or do a social media post, You're playing the game.
Maybe you have a small influence.
Some people have bigger ones.
I have a relatively larger influence, bigger audience.
But to me, I have to say, I sometimes catch myself playing it like a game.
You know what I mean? Do you ever feel it?
And maybe even when you watch me, you feel it.
That there's something that's entertainment...
About all of this.
It's fun.
Just like a video game.
Except that it has the downside that it's also real.
Because I feel as if the Antifa, the protesters, etc.
It's very much like dress-up, entertainment is sort of replacing sports because there aren't as many sports on TV. It feels very video game-ish.
And I think that's to our detriment because we're We're dehumanizing each other, and then on top of that, we're wearing masks for a year.
We're hiding our faces from each other for a year.
The risk of dehumanizing each other is enormous.
Now, I haven't seen that become like a world problem yet, but I'd keep an eye on that one.
Here's what I think, though, is our solution going forward.
In my opinion, the republic is gone.
So we don't have to worry about, hey, might we lose the republic?
That's gone. And it's gone with certainty because the ballot counting in key cities were not transparent, and they were not witnessed, and that was done by force.
So that's our government.
Our government was the force that drove the witnesses out of the office.
Our government was not the vote.
The government is the force.
Because if they can do that, and obviously they got away with it so far, that's the government.
Right? I mean, I feel it's fair.
That doesn't even feel like a stretch.
The government is what happens that creates your leadership.
What happened was some force that made the system non-transparent and that caused Biden to get elected.
That is your government. I don't know what you'd call that, but it's not a republic or even close.
Then on top of that, you had the media influence, the changing of the rules, the political BS. Definitely wasn't a republic, but here's the thing.
Could we get it back?
Do you want to get it back?
Do you even notice?
Here you are, here I am, I used to be in a republic, or I thought I was.
Now I'm not.
What's different? What's different?
My coffee tasted exactly the same, but I'm not in a republic.
So the first thing you need to ask yourself is, does it matter that much?
The next thing you need to ask is, how long have we not been in a republic?
Because I doubt this was the one election where elections could be stolen.
Does that seem likely?
If you believe it was stolen this time, would you really believe it never happened before?
If it happened this time, it probably at least was attempted every time.
Doesn't mean it worked every time.
I think Trump might have surprised them with higher votes than they could cheat in time.
But you'd have to assume it happened.
Here's what I think is the fix.
Engineering. Engineering.
And in this case, I guess re-engineering is the fix.
Let me give you an example. We have a big problem with the vote.
Could you engineer a solution that would improve credibility?
Yes. Yes.
I think MIT has a voting app.
I believe it's blockchain-based.
I haven't looked at it. It's called VOTZ or something.
Would we just take one of these apps and just put it into service in the next election?
I don't think we're there yet, but we could run it in parallel.
Find a bunch of voters who are willing to vote in person and also use the app and then just see if it's different.
Do at least one live test.
But, so there's an example where engineers...
Could simply invent stuff that solves a little bit of our problem, not all of it, right?
Then what about adding auditability to the rest of the system, you know, because it probably won't be all app.
Could we do that? Yeah. We know how to do transparency, etc.
What about re-engineering our government?
Well, it looks like that's going to happen, because I would imagine that if things go the way it looks like they're going, which is always a gamble, but if things go the way they should be going, I would expect Republicans will own the Congress and own the entire government in two to four years.
That's what I would imagine would happen.
What about maybe emptying out the cities and just finding a better way to live?
I think that'd be good. So if we fix the voting, I think we can fix the republic.
But until we do that, we're just not a republic.
But we could be one as easily as implementing a reliable technology for voting.
So it's not even...
If you were to look at the...
You know, the history of problems and sort of rank them, like how big is this problem?
How big is this problem?
Well, losing the republic sounds like the biggest problem in the world, but probably isn't.
It probably isn't.
We'll probably just still go to work.
The economy is a little bit separated from all of this business.
The economy doesn't really care, except interest rates and, you know, some stuff like that.
But it doesn't care what system created it.
So I think the economy will chug along and we'll figure out how to fix the vote and we probably will recover and become a republic.
Probably close to 100%.
I think our odds are really good.
Here's the funniest thing that's happening now.
Just to summarize how absurd our current situation is.
This is how absurd it is.
That President-elect Biden is calling for Democrats to unify with the people that Biden calls neo-Nazi supporters.
And no one is asking a follow-up question, which is sort of the punchline of it.
No one's asking a follow-up question.
Don't you think that that deserves a follow-up?
As in, why would Democrats want to unify with who Biden believes, and of course he's wrong, But Biden believes, and he's been saying it for a few years now, that Trump supporters are basically neo-Nazi supporters because of Charlottesville, because of the president, etc.
So why would he want to unify with neo-Nazi supporters, according to him?
Now obviously it's not true, but that's what he believes.
He sold that to the fucking country.
Maybe he needs to live in it.
Maybe he should live in the country that he sold to his idiot voters.
What he sold was that half the country is irredeemable.
Don't ask me to be redeemed.
Don't ask me to be redeemed.
This is unforgivable.
Unity with people that you've smeared as neo-Nazis for three years just isn't going to happen.
I fucking hate his guts.
And by the way, I've never said that about a president.
I've never said, even if I disagree with the president, don't like their policies, I've never said I hate their guts.
But I hate Biden.
Because of this. I mean, this doddering old fool could destroy the whole fucking country just by being an asshole.
Now, In other news...
Here's another one. I love watching Glenn Greenwald dunk on people on Twitter, not only because he's good at it, but because he doesn't call favorites.
If Glenn Greenwald thinks you're a bad person, he's going to take you out on Twitter.
It doesn't matter what party you are.
It doesn't matter anything else. So I always appreciate his consistency and transparency.
And by the way, I think he's I believe he's insulted me on Twitter, some opinion I had at one point.
So I don't like him personally, just to be clear.
But as a media personality, he's really valuable.
So I value him in that sense.
So he tweeted today about a tweet by Casey Hunt, who works for NBC. And Casey said this about Biden.
She said, I'm just struck by the reality that we'll now have a president who, as a rule, Doesn't lie, even when it might be easier.
And she was referring to the fact that she asked a question, or somebody asked Biden a question, and he refused to answer it.
So a direct response by NBC employee to Biden refusing to answer a very basic question, and she's wowed by him because, as a rule, he's not going to lie.
So how did Glenn Greenwald...
Take Casey Hunt's fawning opinion that Biden, who just stiffed her for an answer, he just stiffed the press for an easy, simple, direct answer, and she's praising him for his transparency.
What did Glenn Greenwald say about this?
He said, and I quote, aside from the fact that Biden has a long history of She was acting grateful for being stonewalled.
I mean, you know, I said on Twitter this morning that comedy is dead, right?
But this is comedy.
How do you read this exchange and not laugh?
Comedy can't work on TV or movies anymore because you'll get cancelled if you say stuff.
But this is just pure comedy.
And I'm not joking when I say that I watch CNN for the laughs because they'll come up with something that's just so clearly not true and I'll just laugh.
I'll bet people will leave that one.
And by the way, just to be clear, I think that the news on the right is going to get pretty bad if we end up with a Biden administration.
So it's not about the left, exactly.
It has more to do with the way the system is designed.
All right. Here's the story.
The chairman of Smartmatic...
It was a guy named Lord Malik Brown.
And George Soros just tapped him to lead George Soros' Open Society organization.
Now, I call that ironic.
But it turns out that that word ironic...
I'm trying to think if there's any other example in the English language where a word can mean what it means, but it also simultaneously means the opposite of what it means.
So ironic, if you use the real classic historical definition of the word, would be, let me give you an example of something that would be ironic.
If you were the strongest man in the world, and you moved into a town that was called Weakville, That would be ironic.
You're the strongest man in the world, but you moved into a town called Weakville.
Now what people think the word ironic means is coincidence, which it doesn't.
It's a kind of coincidence, but it's a special kind that I just mentioned.
What would be just a coincidence would be if the strongest man in the world moved into a town called Strongville.
You'd say, well, that's a coincidence.
But it's not ironic, because they're both strong.
Alright, so here's the guy who's the chairman of Smartmatic, the voting software, which the biggest thing in the news right now is that the voting software is not transparent.
It can't be audited.
We can't see the code.
So he's literally the chairman of the most famous-for-being-not-transparent company, In the news at the moment.
And while he's being famous for being the chairman of the least transparent company, he got to be the head of the open society.
So the least transparent person is the head of the open society.
That's ironic.
Because he's the least transparent in the open society.
Alright. Now, I don't know what to make about this, except that obviously you can't use Smartmatic software anymore.
Obviously. Is that even in question anymore?
Is there any smart person who says that we can still use this voting system?
Of course not. We're way beyond the point where this is a judgment call.
Way beyond that.
We're at the point where the only thing you need to know is if the chairman of Smartmatic is working for George Soros.
It doesn't matter if George Soros is innocent of everything he's ever been blamed of.
It doesn't matter what the base reality is.
The United States will not accept an election that they know The head of the Smartmatic company is also the head of Open Society.
That's not even close to something we'll accept.
It's not in the zip code of something Americans will accept.
Now, we accepted it up till now because people just weren't aware of any connection.
But if we assume this news is true, and I suppose I could find out in 10 minutes that it's the fake news, but it was in the news.
It was in the news, or it was on social media.
But let's assume this is true.
It doesn't mean that this Lord Malik is doing anything bad, right?
There's no evidence that he did anything bad.
And I'm not alleging that he's guilty of anything.
I'm just making a very common sense statement that if, let's say, oh, I don't know, Vladimir Putin became the chairman of our voting company's software, Would we say, well, there's no evidence that Putin was messing with the software, and we like the software.
So, I mean, I think we could get over the fact that the chairman of the company is Vladimir Putin.
You know, right? Yeah, we don't have any transparency, and if he did rig the system or he was part of it, we would have no way of knowing.
But, again...
Telling me that Vladimir Putin is using this software to rig the election, do you know what I call that?
Baseless. It's baseless.
That is baseless.
Because there is no evidence that Vladimir Putin, allegedly, or not allegedly, but if you could imagine in your mind that he was the chairman of Smartmatics, which he isn't, Would you say that's okay?
We can let that stand because there's no evidence of bad behavior?
No, of course not.
Of course not.
So it doesn't matter what Lord Malik Brown has or has not done or might do or could do.
None of that matters. None of that is part of the decision.
All you need to know is that this setup is unacceptable to Americans.
That's it. That's it.
That's the end of the story. And Mike Koudre, I don't know how to pronounce his name, Koudre, he's an entrepreneur and activist, and he's calling on President Trump to declare that Dominion and Smartmatic are a national security threat, and to do that by executive order, and to bar them from every doing business in the United States.
And he finishes his tweet by saying, we cannot allow foreign companies to control our elections.
Now, does anybody have any problem with that?
I mean, any.
Can you think of, even as a devil's advocate, if you just wanted to even pretend you were on the other side of that argument, That we should ban them by executive decree, or what do you call it?
Executive order. I don't even know if you could find a Democrat that would disagree with it.
Would you? I mean, once you explained it, if you just threw it on somebody, they will just take their sides.
But if you actually sat down, any Democrat, and you just said, here's the situation.
Half of the country doesn't trust these machines.
They're not auditable.
And we're sending data through foreign countries and it's owned by a foreign country.
Is there anything else you need to know about whether we should use these machines?
I don't think so. Do you need to know that there's definitely a problem in the 2020 election?
No. No, you don't need to know that.
Do you need to know if the 2020 election was perfect?
No. It has no bearing on the decision.
Nothing that happened this year has any bearing on the fact that it's a situation that is completely insecure.
And I don't think anybody's even arguing that.
So, of course we should do it as part of Homeland Security.
Of course.
Why would we even debate this?
And why is the president not doing it already?
I would expect him to do it before he leaves office.
So do you think that, which would be fun, because it would require Biden to undo it.
Imagine that. Imagine that Biden would have to undo that if he thought it should be undone.
That would be pretty awkward, wouldn't it?
Because it's one thing to have a situation and maybe you just get used to it or you didn't notice.
But the moment that Trump banned them, it becomes a gigantic story if Biden later unbans them.
He's got to have a lot of explaining to do.
So the president, the current president, has lots of ways to make things interesting for a Biden administration president.
Let me give you an update on World War III, which some of you probably don't realize that we're in.
Now, you may say to yourself, how could we be in World War III? Nothing's blowing up.
Or at least, there's not enough blowing up that it looks like World War III. Well, here's the thing.
Imagine using a nuclear weapon against China or Russia, or vice versa.
Will that ever be a good idea?
No. No. Imagine China sends its tanks to attack Russia or whatever.
Would that ever be a good idea?
Nope. Nope.
Under no scenario will it ever make sense, you know, if you're being rational, under no scenario will the big countries fight each other directly militarily because it's self-insured destruction.
But they can hack each other apparently all day long.
They can do propaganda.
They can do dirty tricks.
As long as it's hard to know who's doing what to whom, There's no limit.
Apparently all those limits are off.
And those tools, while they used to be strong, but not strong enough to necessarily overthrow the United States, or necessarily overthrow like a major country, they are now.
They are now.
If you ever believe that those propaganda, persuasion, disinformation, Dirty tricks.
If you ever thought that they weren't that strong, and maybe they could only work in a third world country, South America, where you're trying to overthrow a third world country, but even then, you probably have to arm the rebels, right?
So even if you're talking about overthrowing some small country, you probably at the very least need to put some weapons in the hands of the people who want to take over.
But we're in a world where the power of those tools, the propaganda, misinformation, etc., because you can test it so quickly, okay, we put that down, nope, nobody retweeted it.
Try again. Boop. Because you can rapidly test it, it's gone from something that could maybe take over a country or destroy a country to something that will.
Alright? It's the...
The question of whether it's strong enough to take down a major power, I think that's really clearly yes at this point.
Very, very clearly yes.
And you wouldn't need to fire any bullets or drop any bombs.
You could just take over.
You could destroy their economy with disinformation.
You could destroy their system.
You could destroy their trust.
It looks like that's what's happened.
So, although I don't, like you, I don't have the ability to say, oh, that thing happened because of these dirty tricks, that's how they work.
The reason dirty tricks work is you don't know where it came from, and you don't know where this tweet came from, and is this disinformation, and where did that come from?
You just don't know. But we do know, and I think we can say this with absolute certainty, that the United States and China are in a hot war.
And have been for some time.
A hot war of these non-kinetic things from persuasion to dirty tricks.
Likewise, I assume China and Russia are probably fighting it out under the hood where nobody sees it.
I imagine Europe is deeply in the war.
I imagine every major country is either being affected or is on offense.
Or both. I assume that we're giving back to China as good as we're getting.
We just don't hear about it in the news because it's spy stuff.
So, World War III is raging right now.
It's raging. What will protect us?
Well, some of it is, you know, a lot of it is adjusting as you go.
So, you know, if you're in a war, you can have a plan, but as is famously said, all war plans disappear as soon as the first shots are fired, and then all hell breaks loose.
So, I don't know if there's some specific plan.
That we need to win World War III or to be protected or anything.
You know, we'll be adjusting and working on it as we go.
But I don't know that it could end, you know?
If you have a kinetic war, we know how to end those.
We're not good at it, but at least we know how.
We end it by it becomes so bad that one side sues for peace.
You meet, you sign some documents.
You know how to end a real war, you know, the old-fashioned war.
But how do you end a propaganda war?
Because you can just say it wasn't us.
So, here's why I think that there's a gigantic shift coming, and you're probably participating in it right now.
The only thing that can protect you is people who are not on the take.
That's it. And I think that means independent journalists and independent people who have the benefit of these tools where they can have a big reach, but they can help you sort out What is real from what is not real.
Because the news has abandoned that business.
They even started a fake fact-checking business to really reinforce how not in the business of facts they are.
They've all created fake fact-checking, which is just amazing to me.
You're going to have to rely in the future on people.
I'm not going to say me, but people like me.
Which you can say, uh, it doesn't seem like he's getting paid by somebody to do this.
He's not working for China.
Not running for office.
Not going to run for office.
I've got enough money.
More money is great.
You know, everybody likes more money.
But there are some people, there will be your...
Your independence.
Who, if they don't become stronger in terms of their messaging and power to, you know, dehypnotize you.
Yeah, I guess unhypnotize you.
Without that, I think we're lost.
So it seems to me that ensuring that our social media platforms will allow independent voices to continue to be heard everywhere, without that we're in real trouble.
But I think we'll be able to maintain that.
I think we'll be able to keep that.
So that's the way we're going.
We need to educate ourselves as voters.
I would recommend my own books for that, these two in particular, Win Bigly and, no, this one, Loser Think.
Because the better you are at spotting BS, and that's what both of those books will help you do, spot things that aren't true but that are being presented as true, you need to build that into your talent stack.
So that these citizens can take over the country again as we have before.
So this is a bit of a 1776, but it's the digital version, meaning that we don't need to form a George Washington militia and attack the armies of another force.
We do need to form a digital militia, in effect, of people who are hardened against fake news and can therefore dehypnotize the people who are not hardened against it yet.
And then, of course, our technology people need to, as MIT did, coming up with a voting app and other apps to give us transparency.
And we can survive this.
We will. I think you'll be fine.
There are 522 deaths cumulative in my county from COVID. 522.
I don't know any of them, so I'm not aware of anybody in my county personally who died of COVID. It's a big county, though, so it includes...
You know, some metro areas.
But that's pretty scary.
So I'm in California and I'm officially locked down.
I think today is the beginning of the new lockdown.
So I can't eat in a restaurant, even outdoors.
I'm not supposed to go anywhere unless it's required.
And I don't know how long this lasts.
But There's a good chance that I'll start doing some evening broadcasts.
I have to see if I can rally for that.
But it's going to be a tough few months.
The only thing I'm positive of, with no doubt whatsoever, is we'll get through it.
That's the weird thing about this pandemic, is it does sort of have a timer on it.
We don't know when the timer dings, but the timer is set.
We will get past this.
We won't all be here to enjoy it, but we will get past it.
All right, so in addition to the voting machine stuff, let me reiterate the claims made about Georgia that are not exotic and have not been debunked by anybody as far as I know.
2,400 people not registered, 1,000 people registered with a P.O. box, 5,000 people voted after the registration date, 10,000 who were deceased.
Now, do you believe those numbers?
Because you probably shouldn't.
They're not numbers that are based on somebody counted it up.
They had proof and they counted it.
I believe that these numbers come from the data.
In other words, the initial look into the data suggested that these are either true or you definitely ought to look into it.
At the very least, you need to look into this stuff.
And I believe that this would fall into the category of what I was telling you from the very beginning would be the, quote, good stuff.
So you've never heard from me that the voting machine criticisms were the good stuff.
You've never heard from me that the video of somebody allegedly doing something during the ballot counting, you've never heard me say that that's the good stuff.
This was the good stuff.
If it's good enough, I suppose we'll know someday.
We'll see. Walmart's selling some home COVID tests, but you still have to send them in.
But maybe this is a big deal.
If you could find out if you had coronavirus within two days, maybe that makes a difference.
But you have to get to the point where people can do it without sending it away to a lab.
But at least Walmart's Making a difference.
So good for Walmart. Stepping up.
Appreciate that. Alright.
That is what I wanted to say for today.
Do you have any questions?
Is there anything you'd like to know?
Somebody says we'll be a country of oligarchs and welfare groups.
Yeah, you know, one of the things that, and I mentioned this before, historically there's this cycle, I don't know if this is the fourth turning or if it's just a cycle, but apparently when a civilization such as the United States becomes very successful, then there's this Income inequality that happens and then everything goes to hell.
Historically, that happens sort of close to all the time.
Will that happen now?
Here's my optimism on that.
I say no. Because the prehistory, let me say it clearer, the history of the world before the internet just can't look like the history of the world after the internet.
There isn't any way that those should look similar.
So, I can certainly see how a civilization that did not have instant and good communication could fall apart in a number of ways.
But, because of our communication being so good now, we're a little bit self-healing.
If you look at how our economy can recover from just about anything now, If you took the economy of the United States and go back to pre-internet days, one good punch and you got the Great Depression.
It's just one punch, boom, depression.
But at the moment, because we're so much smarter about what to tweak and when to tweak it and how much to tweak it and everybody can communicate and get on the same page and all of that stuff, I think we're in a world where Where we can just re-engineer when we need to.
And we need to. So we're in exactly a point when our commuting patterns are changing.
The way we eat, the way we entertain is changing.
Healthcare is completely changing.
The cities will probably...
Who knows what's going to happen to the cities.
But you have all this...
Change happening, and all of it requires re-engineering.
So if you have a world which is now connected by the internet, and we could all sort of work as one, that's a really different situation.
Let me give you just the smallest example.
Just the smallest example.
And some of you saw this in real time.
So in the spring when the coronavirus came out, The president was looking for people to suggest, what should we do that isn't already obvious?
Are there other things that the administration should be doing?
Now, one of the most phenomenal things I've ever seen in my life, I mean really just like goosebump kind of stuff, is that lots of people responded to that.
Just ordinary, smart citizens who said, I've got an idea.
I'll bet you didn't think about this one.
Submitted it to people who they knew could get that information to the administration.
And I watched it happen in minutes.
As in somebody would send me an idea that I thought was worthy enough that the administration should see it.
I would send it to my closest contact that could make that happen.
And I would sometimes hear within minutes that the chief of staff had just looked at it and had a comment.
In minutes that was happening.
And it didn't happen once.
This was a system that just sort of Spontaneously grew up and did that.
Now, one of the things that I sent in as a suggestion was to get rid of the limitations on telehealth across state lines.
Because we had this ridiculous situation that you couldn't talk to a doctor who practiced in another state on the phone.
How crazy is that?
Now, that was a perfect example.
The administration, if they had not been Prompted by a member of the public.
In this case, it was just something I had this weird knowledge about.
If I had not sent that, was it gonna happen?
Maybe. Maybe.
But I don't know that. I'm just using it as an example of how this mass communication that we have allows you to quickly adjust To even something as big as a pandemic in a way that you couldn't have even imagined before.
I mean, you can really get a lot done when you're connected.
So in my opinion, the economy doesn't have the same risk of shock it used to have, because we have more information, better communication, and also the system itself doesn't have that risk anymore.
So I would say that the internet makes all of our history sort of non-predictive anymore.
That's the good news. All right.
Somebody says, Biden keeps saying he's going to control the virus, but he doesn't say how.
Well, he did say he was going to ask for 100 days of mask wearing, a mandate.
Will that make a difference?
I don't know. How do we deprogram people we know?
A proven protocol. Now, a lot of people have asked me this because people want to deprogram their spouses, and I want to help you on that, but here's the obstacle.
If you're trying to deprogram one person, as opposed to just things you spray onto the social media, but if you're working with one person, here's the hypnotist's rule.
And this is why it's hard for me to give you this advice in this medium.
If you're working with one person and trying to hypnotize them or persuade them or anything in that domain, the biggest part of the technique is the observation.
So you try something that works, you know, generically, and you see if that worked for this individual.
If it does work, you do more of that.
If it doesn't work, you say, well, better try something else.
So without that iterative part of the process, you know, you standing with your spouse and you can iterate in all the right ways, I can't give you like the kill shot.
Say, just go to your spouse and say this sentence and that'll reprogram.
So that doesn't work.
It's sort of a lengthy process of iteration, etc.
That said, there are some things which are better than other things.
So I would attack whatever is their strongest point that they're married to.
So rather than go through all the things that they believe, just find that one thing that they're sure is true and see if you can convince them on just one thing that something they thought was both true and important isn't true.
It would be important if it were true, but it isn't true.
So do that.
Because what that does is it allows people to change their own mind.
If you attack all of their belief as a whole, like Democrats are bad, socialism, then that's no good.
That has no impact at all, right?
You've got to find a weakness or a specific target.
Target that thing.
For destruction, you know, a belief.
If you have a belief that's really core to your whole package, the rest of it doesn't necessarily fall apart automatically, but the rest of it you believed in the same way that you were certain about the thing that just got debunked.
So if you can take out somebody's strongest belief, then they can sometimes talk themselves out of the rest.
So that's a little bit of a technique, but like I said, I would not expect you to go forth and immediately deprogram your spouse.
It's sort of an interactive, long-scale kind of a thing, and frankly, it doesn't even work for most people, no matter how hard you try.
Scott, how about the 11-year-old killing himself on Zoom?
I do not know about that story, but that might be just about the most horrible thing I've ever heard in my whole life.
That's really bad.
A taste of Armageddon-y Yeah, Star Trek. Okay, just looking at your comments here now on both YouTube and Periscope.
Um... Do you see a state reversing after signature verification?
Well, let me reiterate my prediction.
I believe that history will confidently say, someday, not anywhere, maybe not this year, maybe not next year, but I believe history will eventually come to believe that the election went to Trump and he didn't get the job.
Because the fake media is so strong They can just say Biden got the job, and everybody will act like it was real.
Now, if you don't think that's real, you might be surprised.
The media can simply tell you that a thing didn't happen, and 60% of the country is going to act like it didn't happen.
That's the world we're in now.
So that's like an amazing power that I don't know if they always had before, but Anyway, somebody says the hydroxychloroquine Zelenko study shows that it has worked all along.
Well, there is a retrospective study that's newish, that is very strong evidence that hydroxychloroquine with the azithromycin and with the zinc, as Zelenko describes it, works.
But it's a retrospective.
How much should you believe Retrospective studies.
In the comments, show me how smart you are.
How much credibility should you put in a retrospective study?
Let me answer it this way.
Do you know why randomized controlled studies were invented?
The reason that science prefers randomized controlled studies is because, wait for it, wait for it, Retrospective studies are not credible.
They're useful, but they're not credible.
Does that make sense?
Things can be wrong...
No, let me put it another way.
Things can be not credible, but very, very useful.
So if you look at a retrospective study, and it says very clearly hydroxychloroquine worked in the past, That doesn't tell you it works.
And if you get fooled into thinking that's what it told you, well then you don't understand science.
Because the whole point of science is to save you from exactly this kind of mistake.
Science was invented, so you didn't think retrospective studies were science.
You could be easily fooled.
So here's the point.
If the retrospective study shows that something looks solid, the credibility you should give it is zero, but certainly enough credibility to do a controlled study if you can do it.
Now on top of that, let's say it was impossible to do a controlled study, a randomized controlled study, or let's say you don't have enough time.
If you don't have the time, or it's just not possible some way, Then I would definitely look at the retrospective study, and I would say, well, I hate doing this, but it's all I have.
Now at that point, then it becomes a risk management decision.
It's not really about science, it's risk management.
And you say to yourself, alright, if I'm wrong, and I take these meds, and they're not what the retrospective study says, am I going to die?
And the answer is, nope.
They're really safe. So as a risk management decision, if your retrospective study is as strong as what Dr.
Zelenko says is the case for this latest information, if you don't have any other information and you can't get it in time, I would say you're not crazy to use that as a decision-making thing, but do it as a risk management, not because you think science told you it was real.
Alright. I was once in a randomized controlled study in my 20s.
I decided to take one for science.
And I ended up being on the placebo, so that was a lot of wasted time.
Somebody says, stop using retrospective.
All studies are retrospective.
Oh, okay. If you want to be pedantic...
All studies are about something that already happened.
That's sort of the point, right?
If you're done with this study, it's about something that already happened.
It's the randomized control part that is the important part, I think you're telling me.
Somebody says, I was in a few.
Oh, cool. And LSD study?
No, I wish. Well, of course, if I were in an LSD study, you can't do a placebo for that one.
Can you? There's no way to do a placebo for an LSD study, is there?
Does the Senate hold?
This is really interesting.
If you go by the pollsters...
They're saying that the Republicans should hold, but of course it's a weird year, so anything can happen.
But I get back to this.
If elections are being massively stolen, it's going to happen again.
How much transparency do you think there will be in the ballot counting?
If you had to guess, move your mind into the future a little bit, and it's after the Senate special elections.
And we know who got the most votes allegedly.
After this election, are you going to be saying to yourself that there were not witnesses, sufficient witnesses in the right places at the right times to actually watch the election?
Are you going to say to yourself, that looked good?
I feel as if They got away with chasing witnesses away.
Why wouldn't they do it again?
Can anybody give me any, like, reasoning where if you assume that election stealing is possible and that it happened, give me one reason they wouldn't do it again?
Now, if you're saying to yourself, well, Scott, they're going to be looking pretty closely now.
I mean, maybe caught us off guard last time, but this time they're really going to be looking closely.
What evidence do you have that we will look closely at this election, the ballot counting or any part of it?
What would suggest that we'll do it?
Because do you know what people intended to do in the general election?
There were, I don't know what the number is, but let's say tens of thousands of witnesses and volunteers?
Hundreds of thousands? I don't know.
What's the number? Tens of thousands at least.
Were there not tens of thousands of people who woke up the morning of election day and believed that they were going to do something called witnessing the vote counting?
They all thought it was a thing.
And it wasn't. Not only did it not happen, it turned out it wasn't much of a thing.
That even if they had been allowed to do whatever they were going to do, they couldn't see everything that needed to be seen to eliminate the risk.
So, you know, if tens of thousands of people thought they were going to be witnesses and then they weren't, why would that be different for this election?
I can't think of a reason.
Can you? Because I think all they have to do is make sure there are no witnesses, again, which looks trivial.
It looks pretty easy.
And they own the country.
The stakes are through the roof.
And they just got away with it days ago, allegedly, right?
So under the assumption that they did get away with it in the general election, Of course it's going to happen again.
I don't know how it could not.
Of course. All right.
They could not witness the envelopes.
Yeah, that's right. They thought they would be witnesses, but indeed they were not.
So, that's all for now.
I will talk to you tomorrow.
And you YouTube people, let's see if you have any exciting questions here before I sign off.
20,000 lawyers at...
That's an idea!
Oh my goodness, that's a good idea.
Let me just toss out this idea.
It's not mine. I'm seeing it in the comments.
Let me just toss it out. 100% of the witnesses...
Have to be attorneys.
Just think about that.
Suppose you just make this one change.
It may be too late for any of this.
Yeah, it's probably too late. But suppose Georgia just said, look, we're going to try something because we have this issue about witnesses and we want to be credible.
For this election, 100% of the witnesses...
Not the counters.
The counters will be just the normal people.
But the witnesses have to be attorneys.
Do you know why?
Can you imagine trying to chase a room full of attorneys out of her room?
Good luck. Attorneys are sharks.
What happened was, mild-mannered, good patriots and citizens, the average person who's just salt of the earth, just wants to help, Wants nothing except a good election.
Just good people.
We're sending our ordinary good people into battle and they got creamed.
Because it wasn't a fair fight, right?
The bullies just had more firepower.
Now imagine that all of those just ordinary good people who just have good intentions are replaced By professional, actually working attorneys.
Do they get bullied out of the room?
Nope. No, they do not.
Now, attorneys do not get bullied out of the room.
And if they do, none of those votes are going to count.
None of those votes are going to count.
If you kick a bunch of attorneys Who are witnessing it out of the room.
If you have a bunch of attorneys witnessing it, do you get the blonde lady with the big blonde hair and people are feeling maybe that she's not as credible?
Nope. No.
Attorneys by their job are just a little more credible than the average person, so at least it helps there.
Now, of course, you'd have maybe attorneys on both sides.
You've got that problem. But I would throw an attorney in there.
I wouldn't let any witnesses have no attorneys with them in the room.
Maybe they don't all have to be attorneys, but they certainly ought to have one.
And again, I don't mean that the attorney will use some legal trick to avoid problems.
I'm saying that an attorney doesn't back down because it's just sort of built into the framework of what they do for a living.
If your attorney backs down, well, that's a pretty bad attorney.
So not backing down is sort of built into the model.
