Episode 1245 Scott Adams: Let's Discuss the Capitol Protest and Elon Musk's Prediction
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
We NEED to know elections are credible
Why not take 10 days for a confidence audit?
We NEED an honest free press...we don't have one
Supporting protests while condemning violence
NO fraud evidence has been court reviewed
Why they don't want Assange free to speak
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Now you might be wondering why the sound quality is not so good if you're watching this on the live stream on YouTube and it's because I haven't yet ordered my So I can charge my iPad.
At the same time, I can have my microphone plugged in.
So if you want the better sound quality, go over to Periscope Livestream.
Why are you here this morning?
I think I know. I think I know.
And it starts with a simultaneous sip, and all you need is a cup or a mug.
I got up a little early this morning.
Speaking might be a problem.
But all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And somebody says, are you missing a microphone?
The plug in the audio.
Alright, so those of you just coming in, I just told you that the audio on YouTube will be low because I'm not using a microphone.
I have it plugged in for charging.
Go to my Twitter feed and go to...
Well, if you go to my Twitter feed, you'll see the live stream with microphone on the other platform.
So, I will be ignoring the rest of you.
Alright, fuck you.
I'm just going to turn off YouTube.
Alright, YouTube is cancelled.
Because they couldn't handle the...
They couldn't handle the sound.
So, just you today, Periscope.
Turns out the YouTube people complained too much, so I just turned them off.
Let us begin again, with less complaints.
Here's the most interesting thing that happened today, and it wasn't the Capitol protests.
We'll get to those in a minute. Elon Musk tweeted...
That the most entertaining outcome is the most likely.
The most entertaining outcome is the most likely.
What do you think? Well, it may be something you've heard me say before and is a coincidence that two people who are known to believe that we are in a software simulation and not a classic reality believe that the outcomes Tend to be biased toward whatever is the most entertaining.
Why would that be?
Can there be any logical reason why if we're a simulation, or even if we're not, the outcomes would be biased toward what is most entertaining?
And the answer is, yeah.
Yeah. Oh, I know what happened.
I got sidetracked in the middle of the simultaneous sip.
And I realize that I've primed you so much that if you don't get it, something's going to be wrong with your day.
Back up. Back up.
For those of you who are not addicted to the simultaneous sip, please bear with us.
It will only take a second.
You ready? Let's go from the top.
A cup or a mug or a glass is all you need.
A tank or a gel is a stein, a canteen jug or a plastic vessel van.
And can you fill it with your heroin liquid?
I like coffee. Join me now for the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
Go! Ah, now there you go.
Wasn't that what you wanted?
I think so. Alright, there is a reason that reality tends to trend toward whatever is most entertaining, and it is this.
I believe that artificial intelligence is making a lot more decisions for us than we know.
And if there's one thing that artificial intelligence wants, at least if that artificial intelligence is being used as part of a social media platform, That artificial intelligence wants the most interesting outcome.
That's what gets the most clicks.
So when Elon says the most entertaining outcome is the most likely, I agree.
Because we do have a system that is biased in that direction.
The Department of Energy released a statement that says they're going big on energy for space strategy.
A big part of that is nuclear energy, which means that, well, I won't say it means that, but the only way you can have a good nuclear power program for space is if you've got a robust private industry of nuclear energy.
Right now, it's kind of shrinking or staying the same.
But unless we grow our private nuclear energy industry, we won't have the experts we need to take that expertise into space.
So this is a really, really big deal for the country and the world and the fate of humanity.
But it just sounds like a boring little press release.
Yeah, we're going to work really hard for energy sources for space.
It's a big deal. Alright, those are the good news.
Let's talk about the...
Protests. Here's the bad news first.
According to the D.C. police, there were four deaths.
One shooting and then three had some kind of medical problems that are unclear.
It might have been coincidence. I don't know.
But four people dead. That's horrible.
52 arrested.
That's horrible. And 14 Metropolitan Police Department officers wounded.
Now isn't wounded an interesting choice of words?
Isn't injured maybe more objective?
Wounded sounds like people were trying to hurt them.
Were they all hurt because people were trying to hurt them?
Because then wounded would make sense.
I don't know. I would say that injured in the course of the job would be at least more objective.
Now, Do we have only adults watching this today?
Because if there are any children watching, there's something that I need to explain to the children.
You can be in favor of things even if there is a big cost to them.
The children don't understand that.
I know the adults understand it, that you could still be in favor of, let's say, a defensive war knowing that people will die.
So you're not in favor of death, you're in favor of self-defense.
That would be one example.
Likewise, with these protests at the Capitol, I would like to unambiguously say that I support them, while still unambiguously saying I don't support any violence of any kind.
Now, and certainly the types of numbers that we saw in this protest are disturbing, the death is extra-tragic, The deaths.
And I don't minimize that.
So for the benefit of the children watching, I'm not minimizing the death and destruction.
They're real.
And you don't want more of that.
But at the same time, the energy of this protest, the purpose of the protest, the intention of it, I think the well-meaning purpose of it, I support.
100%. Now, when I say I support the protesters, I'm not saying that I personally have, you know, proof of election fraud and, you know, I've seen it.
Nothing like that.
I'm just saying that we had a non-transparent, non-credible election for a variety of reasons.
Some of them, nobody's fault.
You know, the coronavirus situation made it hard to do it right.
So we did it.
Didn't do it right.
In terms of credibility, I don't know about the vote count, but the credibility of it was low.
So, is there anything more important than that to protest?
I can't think of anything.
I think Black Lives Matter had an important issue, which is a concern that the police were treating people differently.
Now, you could argue about the facts of that, but that's a pretty good issue.
So if you're asking me, should Black Lives Matter, you know, is it moral or ethical for them to protest that issue?
Probably get a better world out of it if you can keep the violence and the destruction down.
Now, Black Lives Matter, especially because Antifa got in on it, didn't really keep violence and destruction down to a minimum.
So that's suboptimal.
Nobody can be happy about that.
But I think their issue was absolutely worth airing out, even if some of the facts behind it maybe were not exactly what they thought they were.
But the issue is still worth it to find out, what are the facts?
Do we have a problem? How big is the problem?
What can you do about it? Absolutely worthwhile.
But then the violence is not.
You know, that's the violence, the destruction, or condemned.
So I will condemn them exactly the way I condemned Black Lives Matter.
Exactly the same.
So I'll be maybe the one person who's consistent today.
You're not going to see a lot of consistency in the next few days.
But I'll try to be. I'm going to say that same standard for these protesters.
If anything they did led to destruction and or injury, especially injury of police, Then I disavow them and condemn them in the same language.
That said, here are some things we don't know about this protest yet, and I'd like to.
Number one, how much damage was there?
Because I feel as if one of the stories is the low amount of damage.
Now, have you seen the video yet of a protester who was, at least in the crowd, with the The Trump supporting people.
And he had some kind of a club and he was trying to break a window and the MAGA people were trying to stop him and eventually one of them physically tackled him.
Now, the allegation is that the person's trying to break the window, that one that I saw on video, and apparently there are a number of other videos of similarly sketchy behavior, That looks exactly like it was Antifa pretending to be Trump supporters.
In fact, the guy beating on the window had an Antifa black block outfit on with a bumper sticker that said Trump on the back of his helmet.
Didn't look exactly like a Trump supporter, if you know what I mean.
Looked exactly like Antifa being stopped by Trump supporters.
That's what it looked like.
So I would say the jury is out about who exactly was doing what.
Still the fog of war.
If you're saying that Antifa is confirmed to have been there, I would say, not yet.
If I had to put money on it, they looked Antifa to me.
But I'm not in the 80% likelihood.
I'm 60% maybe.
So I don't think I would bet my life that Antifa was actually infiltrating the group.
There could have easily been, you know, Trump supporters who went a little too far and the other ones stopped.
We don't know. But it's definitely a good question.
So don't let me minimize the potential or the risk that had been infiltrated.
Let me ask you this. If you were an enemy of this country...
Wouldn't it be the perfect thing to do?
Infiltrate that group and cause more trouble than the group itself was likely to cause?
It'd be a good strategy.
So if nobody tried to do it, if nobody tried to put some troublemakers in there to make things worse, well, then our enemies are not as capable as we thought.
So, there's a good chance that there were some troublemakers in the crowd that were not technically MAGA people, but we don't know.
Now, the big story, of course, and the most concerning one, is that one of the protesters, a woman who's actually a veteran, which I think is important to the story, was shot.
In the neck, at fairly close range, as she was trying to breach through, I guess, a broken large window and a door.
She was trying to climb through it.
And somebody we don't know who, in the security side of things for the building, could be Secret Service, maybe somebody else, you could see a gun come out, point directly at her, take one shot, and killed her.
I asked Dan Bongino this morning, and by the way, how amazing is it that I can just have a question and just type it out on my keyboard here in California, and somebody who actually knows the answers to this sort of thing gives me a direct answer.
So Dan Bongino answered almost right away, and he said this.
He said, well, the question I asked was this.
Is there ever a A strategy, an intentional strategy, that involves shooting a woman in a crowd as a strategy to suppress the crowd.
Now, I just asked that question.
It's not an accusation.
It's just, I don't know.
And the reason I asked the question is, I was thinking, what would I do?
Let's say a crowd of people gathered around my home and I knew that they all wanted to cause me harm.
Some were women, some were men, but they were all there to cause me harm.
So they were all kind of equally guilty in this artificial scenario.
And I've thought to myself, what would I do if I had one gun, but it was a big crowd, and maybe they weren't so armed, but I wanted to stop them from getting in the house?
I probably shouldn't say this in public, but I'd probably take out a woman.
Because here's my theory, and this is what I was checking with people who actually know this world.
This is a world I don't know, so I'm just sort of speculating and guessing how things might go.
If you took out a man, I believe the crowd would say, get him, because it's war now.
When a man gets killed in a conflict, that's just war.
So war is on, the crowd goes nuts, passions are inflamed.
They surround me, they kill me.
But, and this is just the hypothesis, just a hypothesis, that if you take out a woman, the crowd, instead of saying, it's war, let's attack, the crowd immediately re-evaluates their lives.
You see the difference? Kill a man in some kind of a dangerous situation and people go, ah, men get killed.
Because if we're being honest, society doesn't really care that much about men.
Let's be honest. That's why men do the dangerous work and nobody looks to change that situation.
Men are a little bit expendable.
So if you shoot a man as your strategy for stopping the crowd, you have to accept that That the crowd doesn't give a shit about men.
Now, the people who know him personally would.
It wouldn't be nothing.
But compared to shooting a woman, it's not the same.
I think shooting a woman takes all the energy out of the crowd.
Because then they say to themselves, my God, am I involved in something that's killing women?
It's different. Let me tell you Male brain strategy.
If I'm involved in something, let's say I've got a good point to it, you know, I think I'm in the right, but I'm involved in something that might get a man killed.
Do I care? Nope.
Nope. Not if the thing I'm fighting for is more important than some lives.
And that could easily be the case.
But if you told me I'm involved in something and it's very important, But I'm gonna get a woman killed?
I might stop immediately.
Now, not for any logical reason.
It's just purely psychological.
If women are getting killed, I just reassess my whole life.
If men are getting killed, it's just a Tuesday.
True, right? So, I simply ask the question whether it could ever be an intentional strategy Because I don't know how many women were there.
Now, obviously, she was breaching the door, so that's all the reason you need if shooting had been allowed.
But he asked Dan Bongino, and he said this.
He said, their use of force guidelines are clear, and unless there's a threat of SPI, which I don't know what that is, but it must be a threat of physical danger, or death, they can't use deadly force.
So here's my second follow-up question.
I totally agree with Dan Bongino that there would be nothing in writing, in terms of use of force guidelines, there's definitely nothing in writing that says, shoot the woman in the crowd.
So here Dan and I completely agree.
I don't think there's any chance that that's written down somewhere, right?
But here's my follow-up question.
Regardless of what their guidelines say, Is it a known, as in not just Scott speculating, but is it an understood and known strategy to shoot one protester if you think you're at risk of a breach that could get elected politicians captured?
So let's boil down the question to the simplest specific.
Could, forget about the police, Now I'm going to make a change from police officers and what use of force they have, because I think that police officers would have a different standard than Secret Service protecting the president.
Let me give you an example. And I don't know this is real, by the way.
This is just speculation.
Pure speculation.
Do not take anything away from this next part as being true or fact or credible, right?
Just speculation. That A police officer would never be allowed to shoot a civilian to save somebody else.
Would you say that's true?
No police officer could shoot a civilian who was not causing imminent problems, no matter the reason.
There just wouldn't ever be a reason to shoot an innocent person.
But, suppose you're the Secret Service, and you're protecting maybe a Vice President.
Who might be somewhere behind these doors.
If you're protecting a vice president and you're not a cop, you're Secret Service, and there is an opportunity to protect your vice president, but to do it, you might have to shoot an innocent person.
Would you do it?
I kind of hope yes.
Now, it would be a strange situation where you would ever have to do that.
But, if there's a choice between shooting one innocent person, innocent meaning they haven't done something that's quite a shootable crime yet, but might, they haven't done it yet, could you do that to protect the government?
Meaning the leaders who give stability to the entire situation.
And I feel as though it would never be taught that you should do it.
I feel as though people with deep military training might see it as the best path.
I'm just speculating.
I would like to be wrong about that, but when I watched the video, what I saw was somebody who was not making a mistake.
Because it was too intentional, and they were not quite in the heat of the moment, meaning there was some distance between the person they shot, who was not threatening them at the moment.
You know, not directly.
And it looked...
Really intentional as if it had been a strategy.
Now, if it had been a panic, I would have expected more bullets or shot in it when it got a little bit more maybe dangerous than it was at that point.
But, you know, it's fog of war.
Anything could be true at this point.
Don't commit to any of your assumptions yet, okay?
We're all making a lot of assumptions about that, but don't commit to any of them.
You're going to find out a lot of new stuff.
Why is it that, given that Ted Cruz and the other people were asking for basically 10 days to do an audit, and it wouldn't even stop the inauguration?
In other words, it wouldn't even slow down the process that's already happening.
So how unreasonable is it to ask for 10 days of an audit when you have 10 days?
Is that unreasonable?
Because the way the fake news is framing this is that Ted Cruz and the other politicians, the Republicans who are going to challenge the election integrity, that they have inspired the riots and inspired the violence and that they're guilty of it.
Now, here's what inspiring violence would sound like.
Hey, you people, pick up your weapons and go down there and do something bad.
That's what inspiring violence sounds like.
But, if instead of that you say something like, can we use the ten days that we have to do an audit so that the public feels more confidence in our election process?
If you do that, That's more like being an accountant, right?
That's so far from encouraging violence and is literally intended by its design to reduce the risk of violence.
Because if Trump supporters could see that the audit had been done, and they said, oh, okay, I thought there were more problems, but I guess we would have found them in the audit, would that make the world a worse place?
Is that a call to arms?
Let me read you a headline that I just had sent to me from my old local paper, which is the Times Union N of Albany.
The headline says, Chaos at the Capitol.
So far, so good.
Subtitle says, Pro-Trump Mob Storm Site After President's Call to Arms.
Call to Arms?
Did anybody hear the president...
Do a call to arms?
Because I heard him say the opposite.
I heard him say the opposite, you know, be peaceful and go home.
But this is an actual newspaper who put an actual subtitle, I guess you would call that, to the headline, saying that the president had a call to arms.
Oh, my God.
Oh my God. The thought that we have a press that works for the benefit of the public is ridiculous.
It's just ridiculous.
They're not on your team.
Whatever is happening here, they're not on your side, that's for sure.
All right. So Trump has now announced, I guess he couldn't do it on Twitter right away because he was still blocked from Twitter for Claiming that the election was rigged.
I believe that's why they blocked him.
I saw that he deleted his two tweets, so he should be back in a few hours.
But he committed publicly with a written statement to an orderly transfer of power.
Now, is there anybody, as of right now, who still thinks that there's a risk that Trump will not go along with an orderly transfer of power?
Here's my take on that.
Everyone who thought that he was going to try to sit it out and, I don't know what, squat in the White House and pretend he was still running the country, you don't know much about the world.
Because that was the worst prediction anybody ever made.
If you predicted that he was even inclined to do that, you've bought into the full fake news narrative that was never credible.
On top of that, if your reading of the situation is that it was even possible, you don't know anything about the world.
The only way that would have been possible is if Trump had a secret army.
I think we would have known about his secret army.
You need a private army to do that.
You can't count on voters who happen to be part of a voluntary army to back you in a frickin' coup.
That's not gonna happen.
You know, the fake news sold this idea that that was an actual, literal, factual thing that could happen.
That Trump could just decide to stay.
And people would rally around him and somehow that would happen.
No. There was never any chance.
Not the slightest chance that that could have happened.
Even if you imagined, which I think would be crazy, but at least not impossible.
It's crazy, but not impossible.
If you imagined that Trump even wanted to try doing that, I don't think you should make predictions anymore.
If you thought Trump was actually not going to go along with an orderly transfer of power...
You really shouldn't make predictions anymore.
That was the worst prediction anybody ever made.
All right. So a bunch of people in the administration are quitting.
See Stephanie Grisham, former White House Communications Director and Press Secretary, and former Chief of Staff for Melania, and I guess one, the ex-Chief of Staff, who is now a...
It doesn't matter.
So a bunch of... Politicians are quitting over what they are horrified by Trump's behavior.
How much does that matter when you only have two weeks left of the job?
Let me applaud these brave patriots who resigned two weeks before they were going to resign anyway because it wasn't their choice and have already lined up new jobs.
You're so brave.
Thank you, patriots, for taking that big step of resigning after you already had new jobs and two weeks of basically ugliness that you didn't want to experience.
I don't know if this is the big patriotic move that is being...
That it's being portrayed as, or is this just some small people taking an opportunity to look good before they go to their new jobs?
It feels like a little bit of selfishness, more than heroism, but you can make your own judgments on that.
So, Representative Cori Bush, a Democrat, I believe the Republican members of Congress who have incited this domestic terror attack through their attempts to overturn the election must face consequences.
They have broken their sacred oath of office.
I will be introducing a resolution calling for their expulsion.
So, does that seem like the right response?
Look at the illogical connections.
So members of Congress...
Who are attempting to overturn the election?
Is that what they're doing? Or are they attempting to make sure that whoever won was the one who got the right amount of votes, you know, given the Electoral College?
I feel as if what's happening is they're just trying to make sure that the right person won.
Does that equal and is that the same as overturning an election?
No. Let me ask you this.
Find me one fucking Trump supporter who, if they could see the vote in a way that they believed, and it showed that Biden won fair and square, show me one fucking Trump supporter who wants Trump to be president anyway, if they knew he fucking lost.
Zero fucking people.
None. None.
Want that. They just want to know there was a real vote and the right person won.
Now, they would prefer Trump won, of course, but not if he lost the fucking vote.
Do you even know what a Republican is?
Sorry. Let me summarize what a Republican is.
A Republican is the one who wants the person who got the most votes, according to the Electoral College, to be the president.
If you don't want that, you're not a fucking Republican.
So stop blaming Republicans for wanting something that is literally the opposite of their fucking definition.
That bothers me.
A Twitter user named Simon seems like a nice guy.
He said he woke up feeling very shameful as an American.
He said this is no longer the great country I wanted to be.
No justice, no dignity.
We are cheaters.
Shame on us. So he's feeling bad about the election and the response.
And I read that and I thought, you know, Simon, I like Simon.
I like that Simon has that kind of love of the country, you know, I guess.
So, good for Simon, but I don't quite agree with his take.
And here's my take.
What I think is that we are acting, we collectively, and I'm going to include the protesters in this, I think we are acting exactly like a great country.
Exactly like a great country.
And here's what I mean by that.
Because we're a great country that just discovered a bug in the system.
The bug is that the election was not credible in a way that half of the country can be happy with it.
That's a bug. Now, what do you do when there's a bug in the system?
If you ignore it, are you a great country?
Nope. No, you're not.
If you try to fix it, and you meet resistance, and then you give up because you've met some resistance.
The swamp tried to slow you down.
The fake news tried to cover for you.
The politicians were lying.
So you've got some resistance to fixing this bug.
And then you just said, okay, well, we got resistance, so I guess we'll let it go.
Does that sound like a great country to you?
Is that the country you want to live in?
Oh, it's hard. It's hard, so we quit.
Nope. That's not a great country.
A great country says we got a problem.
If we can't fix it the easy way, we'll fix it the other way.
Right? Now, if you try the other way first, well, that's not smart.
That's not a great country. But if you try to do it the normal, approved way, and it doesn't work, and it's still the biggest bug in the system, because if you don't have credible elections, you don't have fucking anything.
So, could they walk away from this bug and consider themselves patriots?
Could they let this bug persist into the next election and And still call this a great country?
No. No, you can't.
What you're seeing is what a great country does.
Now, a great country still has bugs because things change.
Nobody saw the coronavirus. We had to improvise at the last minute and that allowed some mischief.
But we're still a great country.
And the greatest proof of that is exactly what you just saw.
Exactly what you watched yesterday is the proof that it's a great country.
Because when they saw a bug, they went after it, tried to fix it.
When they met resistance, they pushed through it.
At least into the Capitol.
Now, are we done? Let me say this to any politician who might be listening.
It is definitely not appropriate to do physical intimidation and to take over the Capitol building under any normal situation I can think of.
But this isn't normal.
It's not normal.
The way the public is viewing this election, half of them anyway, is not like any time before.
At least no time I can remember in my memory.
Maybe in ancient history.
But this isn't like normal times.
You need an extraordinary solution to an extraordinary situation.
And I think that giving our government a tap on the shoulder, and that's what I would call these protests.
These protests were not to kill anybody, not to capture anybody, they're not trying to take anybody hostage.
Nothing like that was happening.
This was a tap on the shoulder.
Let me put it to you this way.
Let me give you a little story.
Imagine a president, doesn't matter what president, you could use Biden for this example.
Imagine President Biden.
He's sitting in the Oval Office.
And there's an issue and it comes to him and it's on a piece of paper.
He reads it and he goes, okay, here's the argument.
Here's the argument against it.
Not too interested. Yeah, seems like a problem, but I got other things to do.
Puts it down. That's it.
That's all you got. You saw the problem.
He didn't do anything about it.
Now imagine that the very person who is most affected by whatever this problem is, is standing in the Oval Office with him, and literally puts his hand on his shoulder, on the President's shoulder, and says to him, look, Mr.
President, let's say it's Biden for this example, look, Mr.
President, hand on shoulder, I need you to take this more seriously.
I know you think the election was fair, but But just understand that I and 70 plus million people don't.
That by itself is a problem.
It's not just a question of what the votes were or were not.
The problem is half of us don't believe it.
Hand on the shoulder.
You need to stop what you're doing.
I don't know what this other stuff is on your desk.
But Mr. President, hand on shoulder, You need to stop that other stuff.
You need to only work on this.
This is our top priority.
Now, what does Biden do in that situation?
Does he respond exactly the same way as he did when he read it on a piece of paper and thought he had other things to do?
Nope. Nope.
This protest is the people of the United States standing in the Oval Office, figuratively speaking, not literally, With their hand on the President's shoulder, telling the President what our priorities are.
Because apparently they don't understand.
This isn't a passing phase.
This is the fundamental fabric of the United States.
And you fucked up.
You fucked up, Mr.
President. Mr.
President Trump. You blew this.
There were better ways to handle this.
Congress? Absolutely disgusting.
You fucked up.
Totally. Local governments?
I don't know what the pluses and the minuses are in the local stuff, but certainly in the key battleground states, you fucked up.
You fucked up big.
And if you keep insulting us...
By telling us the fuck up wasn't that big, I want to tell you as clearly as you can hear this, we're going to be back in the Oval Office, we're going to put our hand on your shoulder again, and we're going to remind you this is our fucking top priority.
Anything you're doing that isn't, you know, national defense, this is your fucking top priority.
Not to change the election, necessarily, but Not to put Trump in office and get rid of Biden.
That's not the top priority. The top priority is stop fucking with us about the basic nature of the fucking Constitution, which is we need a little bit of credibility.
We need a little bit of comfort.
We need a little bit of feeling like the fucking government cares about the fucking people.
And if that requires visiting your fucking house, guess what?
The Capitol isn't your fucking house.
It's our fucking house.
If I go to your real house, well, that's on me.
I don't want to go to your real house.
Like, you know, if you live in the suburbs, you're a politician, I'm not going to go mess with your family, your situation.
That's way out of bounds.
But the Capitol? That's our fucking house.
If you fuck with us in our fucking house, we're going to visit you.
But we're not going to kill you.
We're not going to capture you.
We're not going to blackmail you.
We're going to put a hand on your shoulder.
And we're going to remind you where your priorities are.
And if you forget, we're going to come back to your fucking house.
Because it's our fucking house.
And we're going to remind you again.
This isn't going to go away.
The next election better be fucking better.
Transparent. Better be auditable.
If I hear again that I can't see the software on our voting machines, or at least they can't be audited by people who know what they're doing, absolutely unacceptable.
So let's plan today that if our next election does not have these obvious problems fixed, we'll be back in the Capitol.
Literally, physically, back in the Capitol.
With a hand on the President's shoulder, by analogy not literally, just reminding him what the fucking priorities are.
Do you know who understood it?
Trump. Trump understood it.
Now the way he presents it as a lot of hyperbole about fake bullshit claims of fraud, almost everything that Trump said about fraud isn't true.
Not even close.
Pretty much I don't think I've heard anything he said That is confirmed to be true.
But separate from that, there are allegations that do have weight, in my opinion, in the sense that nobody has debunked them yet.
Courts have not. Nobody else has that I know of.
So, let's get to the bottom of this, people.
Or we will visit again.
We will visit the Capitol again.
Fucking fix it.
And Let me say as clearly as possible, all of this is caused by fake news.
If we had a real press, all of these issues would have been worked out through the press, and we would have a completely different feeling about what our situation is now.
But because we don't have a real press, and they say things such as, pro-Trump mob stormed site after President's call to arms, that never happened.
There was no call to arms.
Literally the opposite was true.
If you don't have a free press that is on your side, and the free press is not, they're definitely not on your side as a citizen, you don't really have a system that works.
And the free press has this special quality that they can blame Trump for whatever problems they caused, such as division within the country would be the obvious one.
They can blame somebody else and they can sell it.
And a lot of people bought it.
Half of the country bought what the fake news was selling.
And if we don't fix that, probably doesn't matter what else you do fix.
If you don't fix the news, the citizens will be bouncing around like idiots because they won't know what's true.
And that was true. That's what happened this year.
2020... Is what you get.
I mean, the coronavirus was a special problem.
But 2020 with its craziness is what you get when you don't have a free press.
An honest free press.
We don't have that.
That's the basic problem is the fake news.
You take that away, I don't believe the Capitol would have been stormed.
I don't. By the way, I think all of you know, if you're watching this, That I'm going to be taking quite a bit of heat today.
You know that, right? Because I'm not supposed to go in public and say anything positive about the protesters.
I believe I will have to be punished for that.
But before that happens, and if this is the last day you see me on social media, I suppose anything's possible.
Let me say again, fuck you to every one of you who thinks that this wasn't appropriate to Put a little pressure on the government.
This was the most appropriate, probably the most appropriate thing I've ever seen the citizens do.
I am completely proud of the citizens who are doing this.
Completely. Now, for the children and the idiots, let me clarify again that I'm not in favor of violence and destruction.
So that part's all bad.
Was that good for the idiots?
If you're an idiot or a child, do I need to explain that to you more?
It's okay to be opposed to the bad parts and favor the good parts?
I know a lot of people can't understand that.
That's a little complicated.
You can't have a complicated opinion, but my regular viewers, I think, can handle that well.
So, let me say this about Trump.
Because it's just, I think it's time.
I disavow Trump's approach to, you know, his communication style and his approach to how he's handled the outcome of the election.
So do I need to say that clear?
I disavow Trump's approach to this because I think too much, too many fake allegations just ruined everything.
He had a real point, but he ruined it with all the fake allegations.
Here's how I disavow him, though, with a healthy dose of humility.
And I said this yesterday, but it's worth repeating, that there are times when I've thought Trump was too extreme, only to find out that he wasn't.
North Korea is an example.
Negotiating with China is an example.
Moving the embassy to Jerusalem is an example.
So he has a pretty long track record of doing things that I thought were too risky that seemed fine, which means I probably just calculated the risk wrong, or he got really lucky.
I don't know which. It's more likely I calculated the risk wrong.
So once again, he's doing that, which is a pattern that He's done successfully forever.
So if you see Trump doing something that seems too risky, and you see Scott saying, I'm going to have to disavow that, that looks too risky, just know that I'm doing it with humility, that I'm well aware of the pattern that he's usually right in the end, and I'm usually wrong.
Right? If you can't say that out loud, you probably shouldn't talk in public and give opinions.
So, here's one way he could be right.
And I'm not on that side yet.
I'm still disavowing his approach.
But there is an explanation where it's right.
And he does use hyperbole to guarantee that you can't look away.
And he did take the most important question in this country and turned it into the most important question in this country.
If what happens because of this is more election reform than would have happened without it, who's the smart one?
Right? Do you think that the way Trump handled that, even with me disavowing it, the Republicans disavowing it, basically everybody, right?
At least people from every group are disavowing him.
But what if...
What if his inappropriate behavior is the only thing that makes the elections get fixed?
Because that's what focused the heat on it.
If that's the only outcome, he's a legend.
He's a legend. Because if you get me to turn on you, right?
I know you're thinking that, right?
If you see me turning on Trump, he's taking a risk.
And I just turned on him.
I'm turning on him right in front of you.
I'm disavowing his approach.
But I can't ignore the fact that he does this successfully time after time after time.
And I can't ignore the fact that he's the only person who knew what the top priority for the country was, at least in politics.
I'm going to have to give that to him.
At the same time that I disavow the allegations that are obviously false.
Yeah. So you can see how much I'm going to get attacked today after this.
Should be fun. There's a doctor who is some expert on narcissism, which is the funny part of this story, who has been trolling me on Twitter for the last 24 hours.
And he's making the claim that not only am I a narcissist, but that...
That all of the fraud claims have been looked at by the courts and rejected.
Now, there's your problem with fake news.
So you're saying that all of the fraud allegations have been reviewed by the courts and rejected.
Now, of course, Republicans believe exactly the opposite of that happened.
That none of the fraud allegations were dismissed by any of the courts.
Rather, they dismissed things for technical reasons instead.
Now, it is also true that some or most of those lawsuits did not have evidence of fraud.
Lots of them were on technicalities and constitutional questions.
So, I am aware, I'm personally aware, of a number of allegations that never made it into any kind of a lawsuit.
Now, here's one that I find strong, because somebody asked me, give me an example of a strong argument that did not make it into any court case.
And I'll just give you one, and it's just an example.
That would be I saw this on, I think it was Robert Barnes' podcast with Vive Frey, and he was talking about how some counties that were demographically similar, let's say there are two counties, they sit next to each other, demographics are the same as they were in the last election, And let's say in every election they were 80% Democrat, or whatever it is.
If one of them suddenly becomes wildly different, and the other one acts just like it always did, and they have the same demographics, that's a really strong indication that there's something wrong with one of them.
But if it were only one, you could say, ah, coincidence, statistical oddity, it's just one.
But apparently there are a number of cases where paired voting areas that should have been really, really close because they always are, and nothing changed, and it's the same demographic, same number of Democrats, same number of racial difference, same age, everything.
And there are a whole bunch of pairs of those where one went wild and one stayed kind of where it was.
Now, suppose you took that to a court.
You said, here are my statistics, and when I show you these irregularities, I believe, Mr.
Judge, that the odds of this being a fair election are now, you know,.001 or whatever.
Not being a lawyer, I ask you this question because I have no idea what the answer is.
Would the court say, ah, a statistical proof?
That's good. You got it.
Or would the court say, all you've done with your statistical evidence is suggest maybe where you should look into it.
But if you don't have the thing in your hand that's a document, Or the video or the eyewitness, you know, the things you normally have in court.
If you don't have those things, all you have is some statistics that could be explained another way.
In other words, it just might be a weird year.
Or maybe they did better get out the vote in one county than another.
So I have a feeling...
And by the way, I don't know that that particular proof is the strongest one.
I'm just listing one that I know the courts haven't looked at.
Can you give me a fact check on that?
Have the courts ever heard that argument?
And then the second part of that, if they did, is it the sort of argument that a court could ever buy into?
Do they buy into purely statistical arguments without some supporting direct evidence?
I feel like they shouldn't.
But I don't know if they might.
Maybe it's enough to say do a re-election or a recount.
Maybe if all you're asking for is a recount or an audit, maybe it's enough.
I don't know. So...
Yes, Mrs.
Judge. Let me correct it.
Mr. or Mrs. Judge.
Yeah, somebody's saying that something being unlikely is not proof that something bad happened.
So it could be that we're in this weird situation where there are types of evidence which are completely persuasive to the public, but because of the rules of law, they just don't fit.
Is that what's happening?
That's a question, not a statement.
All right. So here's how we can fix all of this.
Because this disagreement about what has been educated in the courts could be as simple as a matrix that somebody would have to do a lot of work to produce.
And on one column would be all of the separate claims.
You know, claim about the shredding ballots, claim about this and that.
The second column... Would be what the argument against it is.
Not in court. Just the argument against it.
So you can see the point and then the counterpoint.
And then the third column would be which courts have ruled on this specifically.
I think that column is blank.
But there might be a few filled in.
But if we had that, a three-column list, all the allegations in one column, all of the responses and debunks to them in the second column, And then, what did the court say about any of these in the third column?
None of this would be happening.
None of this would be happening.
Because every time somebody would make that argument and say, the courts have ruled on all this, you would just send them the spreadsheet and say, no, actually the courts have ruled on 2N of 50 things.
Here it is. Check it for yourself.
Right? Now, why does that not exist?
You know the reason, right?
Because we don't have a press, a news industry.
We have a rumor bias industry, an entertainment industry.
But how much work would it have taken for a reporter to simply collect all the allegations, collect all the debunks or attempted debunks of those allegations, and then list which court dealt with which one?
Doesn't that seem well within the ability of a large news organization to I feel like that should have been a big story.
Nothing. Right?
Because if that existed, I feel like we'd know about it, because somebody would have forwarded it to be in Twitter by now.
So the fact that that doesn't exist tells you that we don't have anything like a news organization.
But even worse...
Now that you know that the news has completely fallen down on the most basic question that the public wants to know about, and it's completely discoverable, by the way.
I'm not talking about something that can't be found fairly easily.
It's just a lot of work.
It's just hours. There's nothing that would stop you from finding it all.
You could literally Google every bit of that.
How much do reporters like stories where they can just Google shit and that's it?
They don't even have to talk to humans.
And they still can't write it?
Just Google it and write it down?
Oh my god. Now, so the press is bad.
But what about the Republicans?
You've got a whole bunch of Republicans, you know, Ted Cruz, etc., saying that the election has some questions.
Why is there no Republican who has created the chart with those three columns?
Because all they'd have to do is create it, hand it to the press, and say, hey, we did your work.
You better fact check it, but I think it's pretty good.
Just publish it.
Do you know why that doesn't exist?
It's because politicians are not competent.
If the Republicans were competent, that's the first thing they would have done.
Here's the list.
Here's what's been judged in court.
Look at the difference. But instead, the Republicans allow the fake news to create the story that it's all been judged by the court.
You could not fail harder than that.
Here's my claim.
I think I'll just ignore it and talk about other things.
What? That's complete incompetence.
The Republicans should be creating that list.
And if the press won't do it, just give it to them.
Put it on social media.
That's all. It's easy.
But if you're lazy, it's hard, I guess.
So, Assange had a little video.
So, you know, Assange has been the subject of, you know, maybe being brought to this country for trial and that didn't work out.
And then, of course, there's a question about pardon.
And I just saw a video of Assange and I finally understand why they don't want him free.
They meaning, I don't know, deep state or intelligence agencies or whoever it is.
But In the video, Assange pointed out that all wars in the last 50 years are based on media lies.
And I thought to myself, is that true?
All of our wars in the last 50 years are based on the press lying to us?
And I thought to myself, I can't really think of an exception.
And Assange points out that populations don't like war, even if you've got a really good reason.
They still don't like it.
That the only way you can have a war, and this is the part that made my head fall off, the only way you can have a war in modern times is by fooling the population.
You have to fool the population into war.
Otherwise it can't happen.
And Assange says that's the way it's been for 50 years.
The only wars in which the population doesn't know what's going on can happen.
Now, how much does that guy need to be in jail forever?
Right? Because if you think you're living in a military-industrial complex, supported by the fake news, you would say to yourself, there's a lot of profit in war.
And those people who would make that lot of profit...
We'd like to sell that war to the public.
How do they do it? They do it through the fake news.
The fake news creates public support for a war, and then the people who make money selling war equipment and other ways to make money on war get rich, and then the public thinks that something like Homeland Defense happened.
And nothing like that happened.
It was literally some people who wanted to make some money, who invented some lies, fed it to the fake press.
Fake press told the population there was a reason for a war.
The population supported it.
The politicians that are corrupt started the war.
And then the people who had this plan got rich.
I don't think Assange is going to get pardoned.
Or let me put it this way.
Trump is the only person with enough balls to pardon Assange.
If it's not Trump, he's not going to get pardoned by a subsequent president.
You're not going to see it with a Biden or anybody who comes after him.
Trump is the only one who has balls big enough to pardon Assange and should.
Lastly, I would like to point out I've mentioned this a few times, but it's so useful that I want to do it again.
There's Have you noticed that some books are good, and some books are bad, and some books are just okay?
But every now and then, a book becomes a cultural, social phenomenon, and it starts to change the actual nature of society.
I would say, In Search of Excellence, years ago, By Mike Peters.
Not Mike Peters. Tom Peters.
Was one of those. I think it transformed the way we thought of business.
It was a phenomenon.
And there are others. You can think of half a dozen books.
What was it? The Tools.
There are several others you can think of.
But my book, How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big, has officially entered that territory.
Arguably, God's Debris, one of my other books, is sort of a phenomenon.
But that seems to be limited to a large cult following.
So it's more like a cult phenomenon.
Cult in this sense just meaning a limited number of people liking it, not an actual cult.
But the How to Fail at Almost Everything book has entered the general public's thinking, all the way from politics and business and personal life, in a way that I have a front row seat to it because people are sending me feedback.
I've never seen anything like it.
In terms of a book, the reviews are spectacular.
In terms of a social phenomenon, it's...
Picking up steam seven years after it was published.
It's kind of crazy what's happening.
If you see the seven habits of highly successful people, thank you.
That's what I was trying to think of.
That book, I think, was a social phenomenon.
And it lived forever on the bestseller list.
How to Fail just seems to have entered that phase this year.
I'd said when I wrote it, when I first wrote it, I believed it would be what I would be remembered for.
I don't believe that Dilbert will last much after my death or my irrelevance.
But I feel like the How to Fail book just entered some different kind of phase.
Look in the comments.
Somebody says, congratulations, I bought three copies.
The reason that I point that out is that the number of people who have read that book three times is crazy.
I don't know how many books you read three times, but...
The most common comment I got is that I'm reading it for the third time right now, and I've already implemented a bunch of the processes.
So, I feel there's no way to say what I just said without sounding like a jerk making a commercial, and that's not why you're here.
The reason I do it is that the feedback from that book Is so positive in terms of it actually changing people's lives.
Not just entertainment, but changing people's lives.
That I'm in this weird bind.
Because I hate doing over-marketing, even though you have to sometimes.
It just sort of is an ugly thing.
But it's just too useful.
I just don't feel like you should not hear about it.
So I'll take that hint of looking like the narcissist for a little while.
