Episode 1249 Scott Adams: Join Me in a Pledge of Allegiance to the Official Narrative, and I Teach Democrats How to Disavow Violence
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Pledge of Allegiance to the Official Narrative
Teaching Democrats how to disavow violence
Are BLM leaders responsible for BLM protest violence?
Parler banned from Google and Apple stores
Q Derangement Syndrome...QDS
Should street protests be banned?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Okay. Alright, well there will be a little change.
There's a little bit of a change today.
I've been told that the simultaneous sip is no longer allowed, and I'm not questioning it.
It's been replaced with a new pledge, a pledge of allegiance to the official narrative, and I'm hoping you can join me in this pledge.
I'd like all of you to join along.
Let me read it to you first, and then we'll do the actual pledge.
You can find this in my Twitter feed, Today at 6.41am.
This would be several tweets down.
And if you'd like to join in the pledge of allegiance to the official narrative, it goes like this.
I pledge allegiance to the official narrative and I affirm that our election systems are the only digital systems that are 100% immune from hacking.
I further affirm that there was no election fraud of any kind Because we are not allowed to check a man and a woman.
So that's the pledge.
Please join me now.
This will be replacing the simultaneous sip, at least for this morning, maybe forever, because this is more important than anything else you're doing.
Stand, please. Please stand.
You don't want to sip for this.
I need some respect.
Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance to the Official Narrative.
Put your hand over your heart.
It's optional, but I think it's respectful.
And I'll lead you now in the pledge.
I pledge allegiance to the official narrative, and I affirm that our election systems are the only digital systems that are 100% immune from hacking.
I further affirm that there was no election fraud of any kind, because we are not allowed to check.
Amen, and a woman.
And now... And now you may take the SIP, which is the...
Wait a minute, I'm getting another message.
I can't say that word.
It's just called the official SIP now.
I used to call this something else, but we don't use that term anymore.
This is just the official narrative SIP. I don't know if it's going to taste the same, honestly.
But you can try it.
Let's do it together.
See if it tastes as good as the simultaneous sip.
I'm a little worried. Oh my god!
Did you taste that at home?
Oh god!
I'm throwing this cup away.
Shit! I don't know what got into that, but it's bitter as hell.
Well, let's talk about the news that we're allowed to talk about.
There's a big outbreak of coronavirus in China.
I guess Beijing is locking down pretty hard.
And here is the question that I ask you about...
Are there still people saying they can't hear?
I think I'll just delete all the people who say they can't hear.
Seriously? Are you actually saying that you can't hear on YouTube?
That's not real, is it?
Alright. Your mic on YouTube is off.
My microphone is on.
My microphone is plugged in.
Yes, it is.
Is there anybody who can hear?
Unbelievable.
I'm actually...
apparently I have technical problems on YouTube.
Alright, YouTube, we're gonna turn you off then.
Goodbye. Alright, so YouTube's dead.
We'll just Periscope this one.
Hello, Periscope.
Too bad YouTube, for whatever reason, doesn't work today.
But I'm sure we can carry on.
Alright, let's talk about China.
So they've got an outbreak.
And here's the thing I wonder.
Was there any chance that wasn't going to happen?
It doesn't feel like there was any chance that China wouldn't have a major outbreak, no matter what they had done.
So this is the least surprising thing in the world.
But it also makes me wonder if our intelligence agencies ever thought to themselves, I wonder if we should just spread a little coronavirus around Beijing.
Now, I don't think they did that.
But do you think they talked about it?
Because I got a feeling they talked about it.
That would just be part of the job, I would think.
Twitter stock is down about 10% or 9% when I just checked a minute ago.
Full disclosure, I do own Twitter stock.
Do you have a problem with that?
So let me tell you why I own Twitter stock.
I like to own stock in a company that's so powerful that It can ban the President of the United States and, here's the good part, and make its competitor go away.
Just go away. Twitter just did that.
Just banned the President of the United States and then made their competition in Parler just go away.
I mean, I don't think they did it directly, but, you know, Parler went away.
So I don't give investment advice.
And if you had bought Twitter on my advice, if I had given it, I didn't give this advice, but if I told you last week to buy it, you'd be down 10%.
So don't take any investment advice on specific companies from me.
That would be a bad idea, okay?
That said, let me give you general investment advice, and then you can apply it to whatever company you want, but it's general advice, not about Twitter.
If you find a company that's so powerful it can ban the president and get rid of its competition in the same week, that's probably a good investment.
Take any of the big tech companies that have a dominant foothold right now.
There's almost nothing that you can do.
Those companies are pretty well entrenched.
So investment-wise, any company that has that much power looks pretty good.
So I'm just going to tell you I won't be selling my Twitter stock because nothing changed from the moment I bought it.
One of the things that I think it was Warren Buffett teaches is if you buy a stock, don't sell it until the reason you bought it in the first place changes.
Now, of course, there will be exceptions to that.
But as a general rule, the reason I bought Twitter is that there's no competition.
That's why I bought it.
I bought it because there isn't really any competition.
And did that change?
Nope. Nope.
Still no competition. Not really.
So I'll hold on to that, even though you don't like that.
So, let's talk about the conspiracy theory, rumors that the President has or will sign something called the Insurrection Act, which I don't know the details, but I guess it would be a little like martial law-y that he could employ the military to stay in power or something like that.
Let me tell you this.
If there's anybody watching this who believes that the President has or would or will Sign something called an Insurrection Act.
Remember what I'm telling you right now.
I'm telling you there's a 100% chance that's not true.
Not a 99% chance.
100% chance that's not true.
Now, wait a few weeks, and then review.
Remember that I told you this.
If it turns out I'm right, I'm right, look at what you believed, And then look what I told you, and then see which one of us got this right.
If you got it wrong, and you are sure that you believe the internet, that there's some kind of insurrection act being signed, just remember I told you it wasn't true.
So that the next time there's a question about, hey, is this thing true or not, you should, at the very least, check with me first.
Or other people that you trust.
I'm not the only person telling you that the Insurrection Act thing is not true.
Look at anybody else who's telling you that.
I mean, I haven't looked at...
I've not checked, let's say, Mike Cernovich's Twitter feed.
I don't know what he said about it.
But I can guess...
I can guess that he's saying it's not real.
You can name five other people that you know on Twitter...
Check their Twitter feeds if they're talking about this.
They will tell you it's not real, and these are people that you trust.
So just keep track, and when you are wrong about this later, look to the people who are right for your future opinions.
There is a bad case of what I will call QDS. Instead of TDS, which is Trump Derangement Syndrome, the Q phenomenon has created It created a cognitive dissonance trigger the likes of which we haven't seen since 2016.
I told you when Trump got elected that people's brains would just break because they wouldn't be able to hold in their head everything they believed to be true at the same time he gets elected.
Because that would be so completely different from everything they believed about reality.
Crack. Their brains couldn't hold the two conflicting thoughts.
Wait a minute. Everything I think about Trump, if that's true, he couldn't possibly get...
Oh yeah, he did get elected.
So that's what triggers cognitive dissonance.
Two thoughts that can't be held at the same time.
So you need some weird hallucination to paper together the two thoughts.
Now their hallucination was...
Russia collusion. So that was how they papered over the fact that Trump couldn't get elected, but he did.
Ah, there must have been some Russian collusion.
Now the Q people are in the same situation.
The Q people are finding out that everything that they'd ever been told about Q isn't happening.
So they are learning that deeply held beliefs, really strongly held beliefs, Clearly are not true because now we'll observe that there's no mass arrests of the deep state.
We'll observe that Trump didn't have some plan he's implementing.
We'll observe that there is no Insurrection Act.
So after you've observed all of the things that you believe for four years, I guess, in cases, all of it not being true, what would be the predictable outcome of their minds?
Well, this setup is unmistakable.
They have a belief it will be violated in the most aggressive way because reality is not going to serve up anything close to what they imagined was going to happen.
And they will have to invent a hallucination like the Russia collusion hoax.
They will need to paper over this impossibility that Q is right at the same time that none of it happens.
And what will that hallucination be?
The hallucination will be something you can't even imagine.
Because did you think the Russia collusion thing would...
I mean, that just came out of nowhere, right?
I mean, I'm sure it was part of a plan by some people to put forth that idea.
But you didn't see it coming.
And whatever happens to the people with the Q brains and their cognitive dissonance, which is going to be extreme now, it's going to be really extreme, you don't know what that's going to do.
But a whole lot of people are going to be flipping out.
So if you're just joining, I don't know what was wrong with the YouTube feed, but people said the sound didn't work, so I just turned it off.
Then somebody says, why is Twitter suspending all accounts mentioning Q? Because they can.
They can. You know, did I tell you that the reason that I own Twitter stock is that they're so powerful they can basically decide what free speech is now?
Remember, the exception to free speech used to be you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.
Now, the reason for that is that that would be dangerous.
People would try to run out of the theater and they'd trample each other, and if there's not a fire, it's a pretty bad example of using speech.
But now we've added to that example, you can't yell fire in the crowded theater, and this is not a joke.
There's no hyperbole here.
We've added to that example, you can't question an election after it's certified.
Now, I suppose you could question it before it's certified, but after it's certified, that's our new exception to freedom of speech, for all practical purposes.
Now, by the way, somebody said Twitter's down 6.4% now.
So it started down 10, and now it's down 6%.
Do you know what these smart investors just said to themselves?
Are you serious?
Somebody's going to give this stock to be at a 10% discount?
I'll take it. 6% discount on Twitter stock today?
I hate to tell you, but it's a bargain.
No, I don't take that back, because that sounds like a stock recommendation.
Reverse that. There were no stock recommendations in this live stream.
You should not listen to me for stock recommendations.
All right. So, let's see, the Proud Boy leader, Nicholas Oaks, so apparently he shared an image of himself on social media smoking a cigarette in the Capitol last week, and he was arrested in Hawaii, but he's claiming that he took part in the raid as a professional journalist.
I don't think that's going to go too far, but it's good that he has some kind of a defense, I suppose.
Don't you wonder what he was thinking?
When the head of the Proud Boys was standing in the Capitol building, smoking a cigarette and taking a selfie, did he think that that was going to be fine?
What did he think?
Yeah, what did he think? Somebody said Amazon is down today, but I wouldn't worry about Amazon's future either.
They've got a pretty good situation going there.
So I just have to wonder, what was in the heads of the people who did this?
Now, some of them were murderous killers, we've learned.
Some of them were just patriots.
But I would love to know what was going through the head of somebody who thought they could smoke a cigarette in the Capitol after getting in the way they got in, taking a picture of themselves and thinking that would be fine.
I guess they thought it would be fine.
What the hell is wrong with that?
We've all now seen, I think you've all seen the video, the horrendous video of the protesters dragging a police officer out of a doorway and beating him with American flag and other blunt objects.
We see that police officer laying motionlessly on the ground after being beaten.
Some of you are disagreeing about the fact check about whether he died or that somebody else died.
Or was that actually showing him being killed or just injured?
So there's a little question there.
But here's what I said about it.
Once you've seen the video of the crowd either killing or attempting to kill, it was at least attempted murder.
It was either murder or attempted murder.
One of those. After seeing that, I would say that the The law enforcement officer who opened fire and shot the woman who was coming through the broken window through the neck and killed her, I would say that was a clean shoot.
Now, I say that because if somebody is dragging police officers out and beating them in an organized, crowd way, and you're a police officer and that crowd is 10 feet away from you and heading toward you, And they've just beaten to death, or attempted to beat to death, a police officer, the same job you have, and they're right there.
Do you have the ability to shoot?
And the answer is yes.
Yeah, you do.
If somebody just murdered one of your kind, and it's the same crowd composition, it's not the same exact people, but the composition, for the same reason on the same day, Yeah, you can shoot the first person through the glass.
Now, on Twitter, when I said this, people said to me, Scott, there's no evidence that the cop who did the shooting was even aware that this other cop had been murdered or almost murdered, whichever it was, in a different area in the Capitol.
To which I say, that makes no difference.
Why does that matter? Why does it matter if the cop who fired was aware that somebody in his job had just been beaten to death or near death?
Why does that matter? Because he made the right decision.
Now, whether he knew about that or didn't know about it, doesn't matter if he knew about it or didn't know about it, he made the right decision because we know about it.
The fact that you and I know about it now means that he made the right decision.
He was operating in the fog of war.
He had a decision to make that put himself at great personal risk.
Because, you know, if you take the shot, you personally are at great personal risk.
And he did it in the fog of war, not knowing if it was the right thing or the wrong thing.
But he took a personal risk in his effort to protect the vice president, etc.
And in retrospect, he was right.
Because he perceived the situation as an immediate deadly threat.
One assumes he did.
I mean, I can't read his mind.
But one assumes he did because he took the shot and it looked like a controlled, intelligent, thaw-down shot.
So it doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter if he knew about the other violence.
They were a violent crowd exactly the way His treatment of them would suggest they were.
So I would say that that police officer who was, I think, suspended, when you get suspended, there's a cloud over you that there's an assumption, a default assumption, that maybe you did something wrong.
There's still a maybe, but doesn't it feel a little bit more like, we think you did something wrong?
I feel as if the suspension, or whatever they've done to him, should be immediately reversed.
Because based on what we've all seen, the clear default assumption is that it was an appropriate shooting.
Tragedy, the woman who got shot, I want to say this as clearly as possible, didn't deserve to get shot.
So the individual who got shot, we all agree, should not have been shot.
But the larger decision of how do you stop a crowd?
Yeah, that looked like good police work to me.
Now, Could it be that he did actually do something that's illegal or inappropriate and he should be punished?
Maybe. But I haven't seen it.
I haven't seen anything like that.
I feel as though the appropriate treatment for that law enforcement officer is to give him the benefit of a doubt until there's some evidence, which I haven't seen, that he acted inappropriately.
Now, somebody else on Twitter said to me, Scott, there is never a reason to shoot into a crowd Especially when the people that you can see visibly are not armed with deadly weapons.
Do you believe that?
That there's never a reason to shoot into a crowd.
Well, I said to the person who tweeted, I think you should tell your wife that if there's an angry crowd surrounding your home, that you will not shoot into the crowd.
You would let them come into the home and kill your wife.
That would be your choice.
But I want to tell you that your wife might be interested to know that if I were protecting my wife, and let's say an angry crowd that I believed had weapons and meant me harm, was surrounding the house, I'm just going to put my strategy on it.
If an angry crowd of men, women and children surround my house and I have a belief that they are going to do harm to my wife, I will slay every one of them, men, women, and children.
Now, that's just me.
Now, this assumes that I know the danger is real.
But apparently this person wants to tell his wife that he would let her die at the hands of the crowd because there is no reason to shoot into a crowd.
I guess that's one way to look at it.
But my wife's going to be alive and...
Yours won't, so you might want to explain that to her.
Of course, I would go to jail in either case, but at least my wife would be alive.
So here's three layers down of reality on this story about Linwood.
Apparently he's been banned from Twitter, as a lot of people have been, for...
For calling for Mike Pence to face a firing squad?
He actually said that.
Now, there are some bans that look unreasonable to me, but this isn't one of them.
If you call for the vice president to be the subject of a firing squad when the vice president has done literally nothing wrong, literally nothing wrong, yeah, that might be erasing the ban here from something, you know.
I suppose the free speech extremist would still say, yeah, but even so.
Well, I don't know. At least it wouldn't bother me if somebody got banned for something like that.
But here's the three layers down analysis.
On the top layer, it just looks like a lawyer who's a little bit crazy, right?
And then you look at Sidney Powell and you say, oh...
Looks like Trump got two lawyers who are a little bit crazy.
A little bit crazy. That's what it looks like.
But, is there more to the story?
I will tell you that early on in this saga, when we first heard the wilder allegations from Linwood and from Sidney Powell, that the people...
Who I know who know the most about how the world works.
I'm being very vague here.
The people who know the most about how the world works.
Interpret that any way you want.
But you should assume that these are people who have been part of that world.
Not people who imagine what it's like, but people who have been part of things.
Let's just say people who have been involved in real things that maybe you're not aware of.
When this first came up, they said to me that it's almost certainly a disinformation campaign, meaning that these two lawyers, Linwood and Sidney Powell, may have been identified as people who would believe conspiracy theories.
Because that is something that you could figure out.
You could figure out from past record who is likely to believe a wild story.
My concern is that they were identified as people likely to believe a wild story, and that they may have been fed one for the purpose of discrediting them.
And that looks exactly like what happened, and I need to tell you that I was told that was happening from the start, and that this has every tell for being some kind of either people who are in current intelligence agencies or Have been involved or have worked with them or have some kind of deep experience in disinformation as a profession.
They appear to be behind feeding these conspiracy theories to these lawyers.
But I'm not forgiving the lawyers.
I believe that they might have been targeted because they might have been perceived as people who would believe things.
So I'm just speculating.
I don't have any direct evidence of any of that.
I'm just saying that people told me this was what was happening in the beginning, and there are people who would know.
Well, they would know just by the tells, not because they had personal information.
And that's what it looks like to me.
To me, it looks like a disinformation campaign that was 100% successful.
We'll never know.
That's just speculation.
All right.
So apparently the company Cumulus Media, which I guess is the employer for Mark Levin, Ben Shapiro, Dan Bongino, etc., has told its on-air personalities This is a report. I don't know if it's true.
I don't think you can assume this is true just because it's in the news.
But... Just because it's in the news...
So, by the way, I'll play back the YouTube and see if the audio was okay.
If it is okay, then I'll just never listen to anybody who says there's an audio problem.
I'll just pour through it.
But every now and then there actually is an audio problem, so it's confusing.
Alright, so what do you think about the fact that Cumulus Media is telling their on-air people, allegedly, that's the story, I don't know how truthful this is, that they can't talk about certain topics.
So over here I'm seeing people say the audio was fine and other people saying it was a problem.
It sounded like room audio.
So it probably sounded like my microphone wasn't working.
I'll look into that.
All right. So, here's my take on what Trump did.
And I feel as though just putting it in the cleanest, simple form has some value.
So, you already know my opinion, but putting it simply helps.
It's like this. There's nothing wrong with inspiring people to protest against an election result which you think was non-transparent.
So if all you're doing is saying, hey, I think we should look into this election result and it was a peaceful, if it had been a peaceful protest, nobody would have a problem with that.
But we'd also all agree that inciting an insurrection would be a bad thing.
So I think there are two things we all agree on.
Peaceful protest over an election result and transparency of the election.
Probably all good, as long as it doesn't turn violent.
And at the same time, we would all agree that directly inciting an insurrection, especially if you're a sitting president, would be really bad, especially if there was no election irregularity.
But here's the thing.
That distinction requires the public to know the difference.
But what if the public, or too many of the public, it doesn't have to be the whole public, but what if too many of the public can't tell the difference between being asked to do a safe, non-violent protest and an insurrection?
Because that's what happened.
Apparently there were a number of people who couldn't tell the difference between, yeah, let's go protest, And our voice will be heard, and let's have a violent insurrection against the president, or against the vice president, I guess.
Now, if the public could tell the difference between those two things, a peaceful protest inspiration versus inspiring a violent takeover, if all of the public knew that those were different things, then everything the president did was fine.
He didn't do a thing wrong.
If the public could tell the difference.
But they can't.
They can't tell the difference.
Apparently, there are plenty of people who think go protest means a signal to overthrow the government.
Now, should Trump have known that?
Should Trump have known that saying the right thing, which is go protest, the right thing according to his opinion, Should Trump have known that doing the right thing, let's go protest, you assume it's peaceful, would lead to the wrong thing?
Some people thinking that they should go do bad things.
The answer is I think so.
I think Trump should have known that the public would not be smart enough to make that distinction and that it would cause trouble.
But here's the problem.
Can we ever have street protests again?
Because is anybody telling the leaders of Black Lives Matter that they should step down?
Because their protests led to some members of the group being bad actors and doing bad things and people got hurt.
So are we asking the same thing of Black Lives Matter?
That their leaders should take responsibility for all the danger?
Because wouldn't you say that Black Lives Matter could know with 100% certainty, certainly after the first few nights, they could know with complete certainty that continuing the street protests would lead to more damage and death and injury?
Of course they would. So why are they not just as on the spot as Trump is?
In both cases, they would know if Black Lives Matter had said, yeah, we're going to be peaceful, But, you know, protests that make you uncomfortable are the good ones.
And, you know, nothing really good ever happened without a little bit of violence.
You know, if Black Lives Matter leaders are saying stuff like that, are they not fully responsibility for every violent thing that came out of what was mostly peaceful?
Same standard.
I just think you have to apply the same standard.
That said... If the leaders of Black Lives Matter had been President of the United States and they had encouraged what would be, let's say, a justified protest, justified in the sense that there are real concerns about police action against black citizens.
So no matter what you think about the actual data or what you think about that, it's a real concern.
And I don't ignore something that is that much of a concern by my fellow citizens, even if I think I would look at it a little differently.
The concern itself is fully worth the consideration, right?
Because that's just respect.
It wouldn't matter who it was or what their complaint was.
If they're really, really bothered by it to the point where living in this country is a problem, I think you've got to address it.
So, If Black Lives Matter leaders had been president and said, hey, go do some peaceful protests, and then people got killed, because they're not all peaceful, some bad elements will join, what happens if you keep doing it?
And then the next night you say, yeah, go do it again, and somebody gets hurt again.
And then the third night you say, yeah, go do it again, somebody gets hurt again.
Well, I think you would ask the In this hypothetical imaginary situation, you would ask the head of Black Lives Matter, who in my imaginary situation is also the president, you'd ask him to step down, wouldn't you?
But here's the bigger question.
Now that we know that every kind of street protest will inevitably be, let's say, will be taken over by the bad elements, if you had a protest tomorrow that was a street protest with lots of energy...
It wouldn't matter what the topic was.
Bad people would join it, and they'd say, hey, we can hide in this crowd.
We'll break some windows.
We'll hurt some people that we think should be hurt.
So maybe we've reached a point where if you have social media that works, we don't really have social media that works at this point, I would argue, in terms of free speech, but maybe we should just take it as a standard and That if you're an organizer of a protest and somebody dies, you're responsible. Because that's what we told Trump.
And I don't disagree.
I don't disagree that Trump has responsibility for the deaths in the Capitol.
I think he has responsibility.
But I would like to take that concept and apply it to everybody.
I think the Black Lives Matter leaders have responsibility for the deaths that came out of those protests.
Now, you might say the benefit of the protests in the long run is greater than the immediate deaths.
I would listen to that argument, but you still have to take responsibility for the deaths.
Because if you do something you know will result in death, if you know it, or at least injury, if you know it, do you think if Antifa brings, I don't know, Let's say Antifa brings a thousand people to a city.
Do you think they don't know people are going to get hurt?
Of course they do. Of course they do.
So I would just want to be consistent in the standard.
Either the leaders are always blamed for the deaths or never.
But you've got to pick one.
And I guess I'd be okay picking either one.
I've entered the Twilight Zone.
Somebody says Kamala Harris encouraged rioters she should be impeached next.
I think that's completely fair.
So people are saying that Kamala Harris had encouraged the Black Lives Matter protesters and even said things that sounded to me like she encouraged a little bit of violence.
That's the way I heard it.
You know, maybe the exact words don't say that.
But similar to the Trump situation, if I hear it that way, Well, that's sort of the reality if you hear it that way.
That's your reality. So I think that would actually be 100% appropriate that no matter whether President Trump gets impeached or not, yeah, I do think Kamala Harris should be impeached on day one.
That's completely appropriate.
Because the things she said did lead, you know, encouraged, incited to rioting and death.
I think that's perfectly appropriate.
In fact, I don't know if the Republicans have any ability to push for that, but I'd put it through today.
There is no reason you can't impeach Kamala Harris for something she did before she took office, right?
Because it was all sort of connected to taking office when she was running.
So yeah, I think Kamala Harris should be impeached under the same theory that the president will probably get impeached.
Now, by the way, I don't have strong opinions about impeachment versus resigning versus 25th Amendment versus even just not doing anything.
I feel as if these things all became the same thing because there's no time left.
I mean, I suppose the impeachment thing...
I've heard that if he gets impeached...
Can somebody fact check this on me?
Is it true that if the president gets impeached, he loses his pension and security detail?
I don't know that that's true.
That doesn't sound true to me.
It doesn't sound true that if you're an ex-president, you don't get Secret Service protection.
But fact-check that for me.
If that were true, that would be just the worst thing I'd heard all year.
I hope it's not. All right.
Remember when everybody said that Trump supporters would follow him no matter what, and that if he shot somebody on Fifth Avenue his supporters would still support him?
Well here's the weird and convenient thing that happened this week.
Trump, he wasn't trying to do this of course, but inadvertently Trump created an off-ramp for people like me, which is actually really convenient.
So without this week, the events of this week and the Capitol stuff, Trump would have left office and I would just be a person who supported him on 90% of everything he did from beginning to end.
And then I would have to live with that as the guy who would support Trump, who other people think is a monster, no matter what he did.
No matter what he did.
Now, if you support somebody who other people think is Hitler, and you support him no matter what he does, well, you just look like Hitler.
So that was what I was looking forward to, is that Trump would just leave office, and then I would be branded Hitler's helper forever, and that would be the rest of my life.
But, because of the events of this past week, it makes it really easy For people like me to say, oh, I'm out.
Okay. I like those other things he did.
I like the Middle East, the economy before the coronavirus.
There's a bunch of stuff I liked, and I can still like them just as much as I liked them before.
But this is my shooting somebody on Fifth Avenue moment.
And I don't support it.
When he shoots somebody on Fifth Avenue.
And now you know for sure.
Because in this exact case, I'm not arguing against impeachment.
I'm not even arguing against the 25th Amendment.
I don't know, you know, in terms of precedent or anything like that, if it's a good idea, but I don't have any stake in it.
I have no argument for that.
And I don't think it matters either, because in a few days he's out of office either way.
So... That's where I stand on that.
Apparently the PGA of America, they're even cancelling their golf tournament that was at one of the Trump properties.
I don't know how the Trump family is going to avoid total economic destruction.
And I don't think that is fair.
That is deeply unfair.
Because I don't believe, at least the Trump family, I don't believe that they had anything in mind except helping the country and getting a good outcome.
And it looks like they will be punished for trying to help the country by a complete destruction of their brand.
Now, you could say that President Trump was responsible for that, and I wouldn't argue that.
All right. That is what I want to say.
So I'm seeing in the comments people are saying that you've got to cover your ass.
Cover your ass!
Now, what I'm saying to you is that Trump inadvertently created a situation where you can cover your ass but also be completely honest and transparent.
I'm not lying when I say that Trump did something very bad this week And if people want to impeach him for it, I'm not going to argue with it.
Does that sound like a lie?
Do I sound dishonest when I say that?
Because it's a pretty popular opinion.
I don't know why you would disbelieve that.
Now, it just happens to cover my ass.
Now, do I feel bad that the truth also somehow helps me?
No, I don't feel bad about it.
Why should I feel bad that the truth went my way?
In a small way.
They are making him disappear.
It is amazing to watch it happen.
You said fair.
Fair. Oh, I said fair is BS. Yeah, I use the word fair in casual conversation while also believing that it's not a real thing.
But you know what fair means.
In the context I use it, it means that reasonable people would look at it and say, ah, okay.
That's all I mean.
There's no such thing as actual fairness, but there is a situation where human beings will look at a situation and say, ah, that's okay.
Somebody says, you're a coward, Scott.
You're a fucking idiot.
I'll tell you, if you've watched me for four years and you think I'm a coward, you're a fucking idiot.
So maybe catch up a little bit and find out what I've been up to.
That's one of the dumbest opinions on earth right now.
You're buying into the scam.
Which one? Did you see the BLML rioter that was in the Capitol?
Yeah, I don't disbelieve that there were some bad elements who are not MAGA people, but obviously there were plenty of MAGA people who made it into the capital.
It is wrong, somebody says in capitals.
Wait until these big tech companies start using our private DMs and emails against us.
Well, I assume that's going to happen.
That feels inevitable.
If you've said anything by DM or private message, You have to assume that that's all discoverable.
My sort of ongoing approach for the last several years, anyway, is that I don't say anything privately that would end me if it were public.
I say bad things publicly in terms of, you know, there could be some things that I wouldn't say in public, I'll say privately, but none of them would end my career.
They're not that bad.
What the jackals are doing to Trump is horrible.
It is. Yeah, the Wall Street Journal says Trump isn't guilty of incitement, and I agree.
From a legal perspective, I don't think you can say that anything he said was incitement.
What I'm saying is he should have known, as a leader...
That it would have an unintended effect, that the way he was talking would have the unintended effect.
So if you looked at what he intended, and you look at what he did, there's no mistake.
If you ask yourself, should a leader have known that those things he did which were technically accurate and legal and okay, that even though they were technically okay, should he have known it was going to lead to what it led to?
And the answer is yes. As a leader, he should have known That even though he didn't break any laws, it was going to lead to something like that.
Excellent question here.
Have you noticed that we've all been trained to think past the sale?
The sale is that the election was fine.
If the election was fine, this is the official narrative, and as you know, I pledged allegiance to it earlier.
If the official narrative is also true...
Then what Trump is doing is quite destructive, and it would look that way.
If it turned out, and we can't know this, there's no way to know, but hypothetically, just as a mental experiment, let's say that the election, hypothetically, no evidence of this that I've seen, or at least no proof of it, let's say it was illegitimate.
Then if you were to look at the president's actions, they look a lot different, don't they?
What if President Trump is the only one who's right?
What if he's the only one who's right?
Now, of course, many of you would be right, too, if you think there was something wrong with the election in that scenario.
But in terms of the official narrative, what if Trump's the only one who's right?
You can't rule that out.
Because have there been other situations where Trump was the only one who was right?
Yeah. Yeah, there have been.
Right. If he did not have a history of fairly frequently being the only one who was right, I would say you wouldn't have to worry about that.
But he does have that history of going against the crowd and being right.
Being right. I like this comment.
Buzz your girlfriend.
Woof. She's my wife.
You have disappointed us all.
I'm sorry, Jerry French, that I've disappointed you.
Can you tell me what exactly you're disappointed in?
Could you be more specific?
By the way, my follower count went from 666,000 to 611,000.
So I'm dropping like a rock.
Somebody says, Scott is swinging both ways.
Now, there's an idiot comment from Soshu, whatever.
So somebody says that I'm swinging both ways.
Now, that's a comment from an idiot.
Because a smart person, and I would hope that there would be more smart people than dumb people on here, a smart person would say, well, Trump has a whole bunch of pluses, but there are some negatives.
That's what a smart person would say.
A dumb person would say, take a side.
Take a side, dammit.
That's what dumb people say.
Taking a side, regardless of who's right and wrong, is stupid.
That's just stupid. So, stupid people should leave this livestream immediately.
If you think I should just take a side, that's stupid.
What about personal responsibility of the crowd?
You could have more than one person responsible.
The people can be personally responsible and legally responsible for whatever they did.
At the same time, you could have a president who's inspiring them.
Yeah, it is funny that my follower count stopped at 666.
Do you feel a dealer should be convicted for an overdose?
Well, I don't think that the legal standard should be applied to the presidency.
So that would be bad at using analogies.
So every time you say, but Scott, what about this completely different situation?
My answer is always going to be the same.
That's a different situation.
But Scott, what about this other different situation to which I... I'll bet you can anticipate it.
Say, well, that's just another different situation.
But if you want to talk about this situation, I'd be happy to.
If you're talking about personal responsibility of, let's say, a drug overdose, the law requires, defines who has responsibility for what.
If the dealer, in your example, sold somebody that they thought was Xanax but turned out to be fentanyl, And the person died from it, I do think the dealer should be executed, in my opinion.
So does that answer your question?
I think the person who takes it also has complete responsibility for their own decisions, but at the same time, the person who sold them Xanax that was really deadly fentanyl and ended up killing them, I think they should be executed.
That's just my opinion.
People with cognitive dissonance either change their minds or change the interpretation.
But it's not cognitive dissonance if you change your mind.
It's only cognitive dissonance if you change your hallucination that holds it all together.
Any comments on Twitter versus Gab?
No, I think Gab and Parler are all doomed.
And by the way, I sometimes tell you that I know the news before you do.
The news about Parler and Gab getting in trouble I knew months ago.
I won't even tell you who told me because that would be funny.
Let's just say that somebody who would know told me months ago That Parler and Gab would either have to turn into Twitter, in other words, act the same way they do, or they would go on a business.
Because if you let the Nazis on, etc., they'll all be cancelled.
So I knew that months ago.
There was no other way it was going to go.
That Parler and Gab were going to either become filled with Nazis and cancelled, or they have to act exactly like Twitter, and then there's no point in them existing.
So there was never a path for Parler or Gab to ever succeed.
Now, I knew that months ago because somebody who was smarter just told me.
And the first time I heard it, I was like, oh, yeah, there's no other way that can go.
They're either going to become Twitter, in which case they don't need any reason to exist, or they're going to go the other way and they have to get cancelled because they'd be full of Nazis and They would lose their banking.
It was all obvious. It was obvious months ago that we would be exactly where we are now.
So, have you finalized your California escape yet?
Yeah, I've got too many ties in California.
That wouldn't be good.
I haven't seen Arnold Schwarzenegger's thing yet, but I don't really care what his opinion is on this.
Too little faith, Scott.
I don't really operate on faith.
I don't know if you've noticed.
It's not really a good way.
Gab has survived without an app, but it's not very vital at the moment.
My point stands.
Gab doesn't have a purpose.
Unless it can be free speech, and it can't.
We don't live in a world where it can.
The banking system would just close them down.
Parlors getting their own servers, well, good luck with that.
Even if they get their own servers, it seems like there would be enough related companies and advertisers who don't want to advertise.
I just don't see how the business model could work.
So the other possibility is locals.
Locals is where I have my content.
So if I get banned from any of this stuff, you can find me there.
It's a subscription service.
We're looking at doing group subscriptions.
Subscriptions, yeah. So right now you subscribe to each creator you want to follow, but we have to figure out how to package it better so that you can get more creators.
Scott, are you Scottish?
I am. Just a little bit.
Just a little bit of Scottish.
When I saw the mass mail-in scam get normalized, I don't know what that's about.
Okay, somebody says Gab works, Gab works, Gab works, okay.
What about Italy?
The Italy story, So I retweeted a tweet by the Overstock CEO, Byrne, and he seems to be the smartest person who's making these claims.
So there's claims about something in Italy that somehow affected our elections.
Now here's my take on that.
If that story is true, That Italy was involved in affecting our elections.
If it's true, it will be the first time in my memory that a story that has that vibe is true.
So when I say a story that has that vibe, let me give you an example.
If somebody said tomorrow that a large ape-like creature had been discovered in the wild, living forever, and I'd say, you mean Bigfoot?
And then the person would say, no, no, not Bigfoot.
It's a different creature.
It's a dinosaur. Let's say a dinosaur.
Somebody says, we discovered a full-sized dinosaur, and it's been living the whole time in Iceland.
We'll just pick a place.
Would you believe that?
Probably not. In other words, it's a story that has a vibe to it that you would just say, I don't know if I even need to research this.
Because I don't think a full-sized dinosaur has been found in Iceland.
So there's some things that just by their vibe, you say, I don't feel like I have to research this one.
I feel like I can just...
Brush this one aside.
So the Italy story has that vibe to me.
It sounds exactly like a story that's not true.
But it is 2021, and we've been surprised before.
Yeah, Patrick Byrne. I couldn't remember his first name.
So if you look into Patrick Byrne, You'll find out he has some serious academic credentials, you know, probably literally a genius IQ, I think is fair to say.
And he's looked into it.
So if somebody with those credentials and that level of intelligence looks into something and makes a claim, should you take it seriously?
Well, you should take it seriously enough to look into it, for sure.
I mean, he certainly has earned that level of credibility.
That a claim with specifics and, you know, he claims some background.
We should look into it. So I'm fully in favor of, well, let's see what's there.
But I would say that about everything.
If he asked me to bet on it, I would put a pretty big bet on that not being true.
Pretty big bet.
I'd probably give you a 10 to 1 odds.
So I'd probably bet $100 against losing $1,000 that it's not true.
Could it be true? Well, it falls into the category of, I suppose anything's possible.
But it doesn't have the feel of something that's true.
