Episode 1434 Scott Adams: The Persuasion Filter on the Headlines, And Coffee Too
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Haiti and Cuba, what's going on?
CNN Stelter & Darcy vs FOX Carlson
Hunter Biden's anonymous buyers
President Trump's CPAC speech
Richard Branson in space
My "Republicans will be hunted" prediction
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
And I guarantee That if you watch another Coffee with Scott Adams today, live, it won't be as good as this one.
Because it won't be me.
It'll be an imposter. And if you'd like to enjoy this to its maximum extent, and I know you do, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass of tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask or vessel of any kind.
Filled with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
The dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, but it's going to happen now.
Now, go.
Ah.
Ah.
Well, if you were on the local subscription service, you would already be seeing a micro lesson on varying your voice, as I'm doing right now for presentations.
And it would be streaming without any commercials, which you could also get on YouTube, by the way, if you're a subscriber on either one.
Hey, Rasmussen did a poll in which they found that because of all the athletes who are likely to make political protests there, you know they're going to try it, 34% of the people polled by Rasmussen said they are less likely to watch the Olympics because of the athlete protests.
34%, that's a lot.
15% said they're more likely.
So the protests would make them more likely to watch.
I feel like I'm in that category because I can't think of any reason to watch the Olympics Unless there's a political protest.
In which case, now you have my interest.
I'd like to see somebody raise a fist, get down on a knee, make everybody angry.
But the weird thing about the Olympics is the Olympics is not like a regular sporting event.
The whole point is to represent your country.
So if you get that part wrong, the representing your country part...
What the hell are you at the Olympics for?
Or more to the point, why do we even have Olympics?
Olympics are a ridiculous concept.
It's a bunch of ridiculous competitions for a ridiculous concept or a ridiculous event.
But I guess people like it, so if people like it, it's okay with me.
It's a free country-ish.
Hey, what's going on in Haiti and Cuba?
Let me ask you this.
When you heard that the president of Haiti had been assassinated by a team of mercenaries, and then you heard that the alleged ringleader of the mercenaries was a doctor who spends a lot of time in Florida, did you say to yourself, Well, that looks like a legitimate story, and we know everything we need to know about that story.
There's a doctor. He got some mercenaries, and they killed the president.
They were trying to kidnap him, I guess.
And the doctor was going to try to take power in Haiti.
Because why not? He's a doctor who can hire some mercenaries, so I guess that's good enough to be the president of Haiti.
Now, keep in mind that the president of Haiti apparently had turned into a bit of a dictator, and also that it's the only country, I think, with zero vaccinations.
So there's some issues with Haiti, right?
But is there anybody who thinks the CIA is not behind it?
Now, I get that this doctor allegedly contacted some Venezuelan mercenaries, but how many doctors can organize a coup without a little bit of help?
Could you do that?
If you wanted to organize a coup, could you put in the phone calls and do the meetings and plan it up and make sure you had all the transportation and the way to pay people and you got the right people and all that?
I feel that a doctor probably couldn't pull that off.
Here's a little back story.
I used to work...
For a big bank and part of my job for a little while was approving business loans to doctors specifically and What we learned is that doctors were really bad at business and They often were great at doctoring, but they weren't good at paying off their loans and they weren't good at opening a business and having a private practice.
It just was a different skill set.
So they were people who should have been good customers because they make a lot of money, so that's who you want to give a loan to, but they were unusually bad at paying back loans.
That's why there was a special department to handle them.
Now, what are the odds that this doctor Was able to pull off a coup attempt, got pretty close.
You know, you'd have to say that got the mercenaries there, got them all the way to the presidential palace.
Didn't work out the way he planned in terms of keeping the president alive, I guess.
But don't you think he got a little help?
A little bit of help?
Is there any chance that this wasn't at least partly organized by American assets?
Do you think? Now, I have no evidence, no information whatsoever to suggest that American intelligence agencies were involved in this in any way whatsoever.
There's no evidence of that.
But we do have a history.
We do have a history of overthrowing dictators in our part of the world.
Now, on social media, it was asked, why would we do that?
What would possibly be the incentive to overthrow a dictator in our part of the world?
And I think the simple answer is we would do it anytime we could.
Historically, whenever we could get rid of a dictator and put in somebody who's maybe going to be more friendly to our interests, we'd do it.
Unfortunately. Unfortunately, we do it.
Or fortunately, depending on your point of view.
The other possibility is that some other country was getting a foothold.
A foothold in the sense of, could you imagine that maybe China was helping out the president of Haiti?
I don't know that that's...
I have no evidence of that.
But you could imagine some, you know, adversary country was getting a little bit aggressive there.
Maybe. I'm seeing in the comments over on locals people saying that they have unexploited natural gas and oil or something like that.
Could be. That would certainly get the interest of our CIA. We would want to make sure the United States has access to as many resources as possible.
Could have something to do with vaccinations being low.
Something like that.
Some of you were saying it has to do with the Clintons.
Can't rule out anything, can you?
But I don't have any information to think of that.
But my point is this.
Do we live in a world in which you can't assume that America was behind this?
Now, what about Cuba?
I see video of the Cubans chanting in English.
What? And carrying an American flag in at least one case?
They're chanting English slogans while they're marching in Cuba?
Now, obviously, it's for American consumption.
How many people think that the CIA is not behind those, the protests?
Don't you just assume that they are?
Now, again, I have zero evidence of any kind of involvement of the United States in Cuba's internal affairs.
But we have a history, if you know what I mean.
It kind of seems to me that this would be exactly the time...
That we might want to give a little boost to some local people who want to cause some trouble.
So I'm not going to start any conspiracy theories because these particular ones are already out there.
Nor is there any evidence that I'm aware of.
No evidence whatsoever.
But don't you assume?
Alright, one of my favorite stories in the news is the ongoing battle between CNN and Fox News and the various personalities, and especially Brian Stelter versus Tucker Carlson.
So today on CNN's site, Brian Stelter and his, what would you call him, co-worker, Oliver Darcy, who also is a CNN personality, They wrote an article about what they allege is Tucker Carlson is furious with Fox News executives.
Allow me to read to you what Brian Stelter and Oliver Darcy say about this.
They say in an article, Tucker Carlson is furious with Fox News executives for not vigorously defending him amid his evidence-free claims.
What? His evidence-free claims?
That the National Security Agency spied on him in a conspiracy to destroy his TV show, according to people familiar with the matter.
The whole point of it is he had evidence.
CNN will just call anything evidence-free because they didn't report on it.
But you could say maybe the whistleblower was lying.
You could say maybe the whistleblower doesn't exist and he was just made up.
You could say the whistleblower was mistaken.
All possible.
But can you just brush away the entire story by saying it's evidence-free when there's a host of a major network claiming that he has the evidence?
I don't believe anybody's, you know, been denied looking at it, have they?
Why do they call this evidence-free?
All right. One of the sources, you know, the anonymous sources, those anonymous sources, they've got some really credible information, those anonymous people.
But one of the sources described Carlson as, quote, furious with network executives, especially the public relations team, quote, for not backing him up.
Tensions are sky high, the person said.
Another source pointed out that Carlson has always had tension with management, but said right now he's extra pissed.
So that's what CNN is reporting with their anonymous source.
By the way, do you know what I call an anonymous source?
No evidence whatsoever.
So here's CNN shamelessly reporting a story with an anonymous source, which is no evidence whatsoever Okay.
Okay. Okay. Here, but the best part of the story is, and you have to read it a little bit further to get to it, is a response from Tucker Carlson.
So, in a text to CNN reporter Sunday night, so this was not a direct response to Stelter, but to another reporter, I guess, Carlson called the allegation that he is angry with Fox executives, quote, absurd.
And Tucker went on to say, I'm not mad at anyone at Fox, he said.
If I was, I'd say so.
I'm mad at you for lying relentlessly.
What a loathsome person you are.
Please print that. And then they did.
So they printed the part about the CNN reporter being a loathsome person for suggesting this ridiculous story.
And what about...
Tucker's denial.
Does it sound credible?
Is it credible that if Tucker Carlson had a problem with his executives, that, like he says, he would just say so?
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that Tucker Carlson would say out loud on his TV show that the people paying his salary were making a big mistake, if he believed that were the case?
Yeah. Yeah. I totally believe that.
It's actually a really good response.
Because one of the things about Tucker Carlson is that whether he's right or wrong on any given story, and we know everybody in that business is going to have some mishits.
That's just built into the model, right?
But whether he's right or wrong on any particular story...
Don't you trust that if the executives of Fox News were screwing him, he'd tell you?
Don't you think? Like, I don't have any doubt that he would tell us that, even at the risk of his paycheck.
I feel like he would.
And I feel like you couldn't say that about just about everybody, right?
Right? You know, how many people could you say that you'd have some confidence that they would throw their own paycheck signing boss under the bus if it were the right thing to do?
I think he could. And, you know, he has also the luxury that I don't think he would be out of work, right?
I mean, he could always find something, even if it's not at Fox.
Well, here's another example of the dog not barking.
Every once in a while there's a story that confirms all your worst suspicions about reality, and especially about the government.
You know all those conspiracy theories and those suspicions you have about your government?
Well, as Matt Taibbi tweets, Imagine the Fuhrer if Donald Trump Jr.
held an auction where he sold paintings for between $75,000 and half a million apiece, and the buyers were allowed to remain anonymous.
Good point, right?
Now remember, Matt Taibbi is not a right-leaning observer.
He is one of those rare people who can take a side wherever it makes sense.
So you never know which side he's going to take because he's just following what common sense and data should be leading you, where it should be leading you.
But this is the sort of story that confirms everything you thought about the public being manipulated And that your news is nothing but propaganda.
Because there is no chance, as Matt Tybee points out, there's no chance this wouldn't be the biggest story in the world if Don Jr.
were doing exactly what Hunter Biden were doing.
Does anybody doubt that statement?
Is there the slightest chance that if Don Jr.
were doing this painting situation that it wouldn't be gigantic?
And by the way, If Don Jr.
decided to make some really bad paintings, like paintings that look like a monkey did it, you know, a drunken monkey, and then put them up for sale for half a million dollars apiece, and also say that he won't tell the public who bought them, wouldn't that be funny?
Now, I assume that Don Jr.
doesn't have any artistic ambitions, but that's what would make it funny, that he would actually do some paintings, like literally, you know, take the brush and the actual painting and actually make a painting, but it would look like hell.
Because he's not an artist. I'm just guessing he's not an artist.
Maybe he is. Who knows? Maybe he has that talent.
But let's say he doesn't because it's funnier.
And just do a total mess of a painting.
And just put it up for sale for half a million dollars.
And say that he won't reveal who the buyer is.
And just see what happens.
Just for fun. Right?
Now, of course, it doesn't mean as much because...
Yeah, his father's not in power at the moment.
But he might be, right?
His father has a lot of power, even if it's persuasion.
So that would be fun.
All right. How many of you watched Trump's speech or saw any eclipse at CPAC? Did you have the same impression I did?
Which, the moment you turned on Trump...
You are interested again?
That guy is so frickin' good at making you interested in what he's saying.
It's just crazy.
And you can get a little bit used to it when he's in power and you're seeing him all the time.
You become accustomed to how good he is at what I call the show.
You know, the part where you make everybody pay attention to you.
He is crazy good.
And you forget, because he was out of the limelight for a little bit, but as soon as you see him again, wow.
And there's nobody in the public realm who's even close, wouldn't you say?
In terms of being able to hold the attention of an audience, being provocative, being memorable, being quotable, you know, people want to pass the clips around.
Name the second best person in the world.
Or let's say just United States politics.
So limit it to United States politics.
Name the second best person Who's a politician?
Yeah, I'm seeing you talk about media people, Candace Owens, etc.
But name a politician who can even come close to that.
DeSantis? Now, DeSantis is really competent.
And a president, DeSantis, is not a bad idea at all.
But he's closer to Biden in terms of his holding your attention.
Rand Paul is good, but no, he's not in Trump's category.
Trey Gowdy is great, but he's not really running for anything.
Senator Kennedy, he is really fun to watch, that's true.
He's very quotable, but not going to run for president.
Matt Gaetz, somebody's saying.
Matt Gaetz is...
Definitely has a lot of those talents.
Yeah. He's not Trump-level, but that's about as close as you can get, I guess.
Maxine Waters. Yeah, that's not a bad...
Yeah, maybe AOC? I don't know.
But we miss him in terms of the excitement he brings.
There's an article in the New York Times by Michael Scheer talking about how Boring Biden is, and he even admits he's boring, and even the New York Times, I think, is going to start to miss the excitement a little bit.
I think they already are. And I wanted to point out the one thing that Biden did well.
Or almost well.
Because, you know, when I talked about Trump, I like to talk about his persuasion ability, separate from whether his policies were ones you like.
I'm going to do the same thing with Biden.
Independent of his policies or his competence, or whether you want him to be president, everybody made fun of when he went down to the whisper.
Remember when he was giving the speech?
And when it came to an important part, he whispered.
And everybody's attention went to the whisper, and then people said, oh, that's kind of creepy and weird, and it became the clip everybody played, right?
But from a persuasion point of view, it was really good.
The problem was, I don't think he picked a topic to whisper about that was of much interest.
If he had used that whisper on something that actually did matter, and really could become the clip that everybody listened to, and he didn't whisper too long, because I think he made that mistake too.
But in terms of voice modulation, I've got a micro lesson I just put on the Locals platform about how to vary your voice Much like Biden did.
And to do it for good effect, persuasion-wise.
Hey, here's a cool thing about the future and the golden age, which I think is here.
Mashable, which is a good follow.
You should follow Mashable on Twitter.
They talk about there's a water taxis.
There's a company going to do a bunch of water taxis that will operate like Uber.
But on the water. So if you live in a coastal town, there are about 50 cities they have targeted, you'll be able to use your app and call this little electric hydrofoil that looks like a little car on the water, but it's a hydrofoil, meaning it lifts up when it's going so that the only thing in the water is a smaller foil, so it has minimum drag.
And it's already existed, it's already being tested, and it's being rolled out And this is the perfect place for self-driving cars.
Because the water is going to be a lot easier to, you know, have rules and watch out for traffic and stuff, I think.
Maybe it's harder, but it seems like it would be easier than getting self-driving cars on the roads.
So this is a cool thing to watch for.
The water taxis. A real thing.
Meanwhile, over in Tibet, they just opened up a new bullet train.
And I guess it's from the town or region of F-U-X-I-N-G. Fuxing?
I think that's how you pronounce it.
So it's called the Fuxing Bullet Train.
Now, I saw some video of the Fuxing Train, and I'll tell you, that's one beautiful Fuxing Train.
Oh, you think it's pronounced Fuching?
Well, that's not funny.
I know you think it's pronounced Fuxing, but how funny would that be?
I guess this joke works better in writing.
Well, that's the foxing bullet train part of my presentation.
Did you all see Richard Branson in space?
I started to complain about him, because once he was up there, it was pretty inspiring, actually, and it was a lot of fun.
And you know, Branson always brings the show, too.
He's a ballsy entrepreneur.
He had an aim of being the first one up there of the billionaires.
He got it done.
His technology worked.
Congratulations, Richard Branson.
Again, Branson is one of the greatest assets on the planet, really.
Likewise, Bezos and Elon Musk and the rest of them.
He did a little message from space once he was up there, and they were all, you know, running around inside the aircraft waitlist, which looked pretty fun.
But he started out by saying that when he was a little kid, he had a dream to go to space, and then here he was.
He made it. And I thought to myself, I feel like that was a rare mistake from Branson.
Now, I did enjoy his adventurous nature.
I do enjoy that he loved it.
And I could feel his enjoyment, and I could feel his success and everything.
But here's the thing.
Space isn't about the billionaires, right?
I mean, they're fun to talk about, and they're the ones making it happen, so you've got to give them tons of credit.
But it's space, right?
Space is sort of for everybody, right?
And this accomplishment, although it's tremendous, I don't feel like the right branding or persuasion is for Branson to tell us about his personal dream since he was a kid.
It's a good story, and I like knowing it.
But I feel like it should have been closer to, you know, one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.
Some acknowledgement that Branson's accomplishment, which is tremendous, and Branson gets the credit, right?
You can't take anything away from what he did.
It's an amazing accomplishment.
But it was sort of for everybody.
And at least that's the way I feel about it.
Because the billionaires only exist because we let them.
Right? Now, they made their money.
They forced the universe to cough up a bunch of money for them, so they get all the credit for that.
But they only get to do it because we let them.
Honestly. I mean, it's not like we took a vote.
But if society just said, we don't like billionaires anymore, they just can't exist, well, they wouldn't.
And they wouldn't be able to do cool stuff like this that should benefit everybody.
So I guess I would just say to the other billionaires, And I think Elon Musk gets this right, by the way.
When Musk talks about going to Mars and stuff, he doesn't say, I have a dream, although I'm sure he said that as well.
But he tends to talk more about how humanity has to go to Mars.
And he says we, yeah.
I think Elon Musk gets this right, that it's not about him, even though it is about him, right?
He knows to make it about humanity.
And I guess Branson, I feel like Branson just slightly missed his usual impeccable persuasion and branding, which are among the best there's ever been, I would say.
Just a very small, small quibble on a great accomplishment, so congratulations.
Here's a little update just to make you angry, because I know it does.
You've heard of Nature, the publication?
So Nature is one of, if not the most respected scientific journals on the planet.
Does everybody agree with that statement, first of all, that the publication nature is sort of at the top tier of respectable publications?
I'm seeing in the comments a bunch of people saying no.
So let's do a fact check on that.
A lot of people say no.
Now, I think there are two ways to answer this question.
There's the historical truth, which would be yes.
And then there's maybe a cynical current truth that you can't trust anything.
You can't trust anything in a publication.
It doesn't matter how respectable they are.
You just can't trust them. So let's hold both of those views.
Just hold both of those views for a moment.
But I would say that whether you trust them or not, they do represent...
Some of the finest in science, right?
Publication-wise. Whether it's good or not, it's some of the finest.
And their finding on...
Don't turn this off yet.
Don't stop this live stream.
Their finding is that science and the consensus is clearly that masks work.
I'm only putting this out there because a lot of you who say masks don't work will say it's because I've looked at all the evidence.
Well, here's nature.
In an article that says, we looked at all the evidence, and it looks like scientists say it works.
The masks work. On top of that, they talk about a test they did with some animals.
So unlike testing with humans, you can argue how ethical it is, but it's legal to test with animals, and they just put animals between a barrier that was the same material as the masks.
And they had some infected, I don't know if they were hamsters or whatever the hell they were, and they were on one side.
And then on the other side, in close proximity, separated by mask material, they would just see if the other one would get the COVID, because animals can get COVID. And what they found was that when there was a mask barrier there, the rate of infections went way down.
So those of you who said, hey, This mask material, and I think they were using even standard masks, not just N95s.
So those of you who say, hey, the virus is smaller than the mask, so therefore the virus will pass through that material just like it isn't even there.
That is disproved.
I would say that's disproved.
So if your argument was, the virus is small, and if you put a barrier there, it'll act like it's not even there, it'll just go right through it.
The animal study pretty much proved that's not the case.
Now, that's not the whole argument.
Some of the argument is that so much air is getting out from around the edges, That, you know, you're not making much difference.
But I don't think anybody doubts that a lot of the air is going into the mask, and presumably the air that does go through the mask has some kind of a filtering effect, because it worked with the animals.
Now, again, can we all be deeply skeptical here?
Let's be deeply skeptical.
Does it tell you anything that there's an animal study on masks?
Is that conclusive?
No. No. It's not even close.
So none of this is conclusive.
The fact that it's in a most respected publication doesn't mean you should trust it.
I think we're all on the same page there.
It doesn't automatically mean you should trust it.
But if you'd like to know what science thinks collectively as a consensus, this is a pretty good place to find out.
And I think it's telling you that masks work.
Now, do you believe that?
Stay skeptical. I'm just reporting what the newest is.
Likewise, ivermectin.
You know the story on ivermectin, which...
Oh, I can't even say this on YouTube, can I? I just realized I'm not talking only to the locals, people, where I can say anything I want about this topic.
So, I have to modify my presentation to not be booted off.
Oh, actually, I'm in good shape, because what I'm going to say is that there's a study that says ivermectin doesn't work.
Now, if there's one study, let's say there's one new study, because there are lots of studies already, but if there's one new study that says ivermectin doesn't work, how much credibility should you put in that?
None, right?
Basically zero. So I think everybody who's smart realizes you're going to have to look at all the studies to figure out if there's anything there.
So one study really doesn't tell you really anything.
But remember that the argument in favor of ivermectin was based on the fact, and correct me if I'm wrong, and I think a lot of people will do that, but The argument is that the people who think that it works are saying that the signal and the evidence is so strong that you can see it in almost any kind of test.
So you don't need the best kind of test in the world, so say the proponents, because almost any kind of test shows it works.
You could do almost anything, and it's just such a strong effect There it is.
Well, if you believe that was the case, we know, thanks to Anatoly Lubarsky who found this and tweeted it, we know that there is one new study, the newest one, that says it doesn't work.
Now, did they use the right protocol?
Did they have the right amount of ivermectin that would be the right amount to test?
Did they test it in the right people in the right timing of when they had symptoms?
I don't know. Probably there's some problems with it, like every other study.
So how much should you take away from the fact that there's one study that says it doesn't work?
Nothing. Nothing.
Unfortunately, we live in a world where it doesn't mean anything.
It's still going to be persuasive to some of us because you can't not hear it.
You know, everything becomes part of your thinking.
But rationally, you shouldn't pay attention to it.
All right. Remember when I famously predicted and was mocked by all of the media, both a year ago and more recently because the year had passed, and I said that if Biden got elected, that Republicans would be hunted.
Well, did the simulation serve up a son of the president whose name was Hunter?
So first of all, that's weird.
That the president's son is literally named Hunter.
But that's coincidence.
However, what do we know about the January 6th protesters who are still in jail?
How much transparency do we have on that?
And could it be said that those Republicans were hunted and jailed?
I feel like that's exactly what happened.
Now, of course, we know that some number of them did bad things, and the legal system needs to do what the legal system does.
But we also know, and without any doubt whatsoever, that the vast majority of them did not do anything violent.
They certainly did something illegal because they were trespassing.
But does it seem to you that the Republicans who did not do the violent stuff Were hunted and jailed and that they're still in jail?
Because that's what it looks like to me.
To me, it looks like exactly my prediction that Republicans were hunted.
Now, do you know what the critics say, if I bring this up?
They say, but Scott, you're not in jail.
You weren't hunted.
Well, first of all, I'm not a Republican.
But second of all, Does that matter?
Did somebody think that I meant all of them?
Like every single Republican would be jailed?
All 80 million of them or however many there are?
No. I think that a decent respect to reading comprehension would tell you that it just means that it would happen too much.
It doesn't mean every single Republican is going to be murdered or jailed or something.
I feel like I can claim victory on that prediction.
How many Republicans have hidden their affiliation for career reasons?
Right? If people are hiding their Republican values for career reasons, yeah, in the comments people are saying, me, me, me.
If you're hiding your affiliation, isn't that because you're afraid of being hunted?
Or at least being revealed.
Yeah. I don't think I'm too far off on that prediction.
Now, there's something that I notice in social media and all political commentary that I'm going to give a name.
I call it binary theater.
Here's what binary theater is.
So it's just a name I'm putting on it.
Suppose you're talking to somebody about the January 6th event.
And they call it an insurrection.
And they say it's an insurrection because there were violent people there, and therefore all the people who were jailed are violent.
They're acting as though there's only two possibilities.
That everybody there was a violent insurrectionist, and then they're going to be talking to somebody who's trying to make the opposite case, that there really wasn't violence and that it was just a protest.
Now, Both people in this kind of a debate would both know they're lying.
And they would also know that each other knows the other one is lying.
Now, if you're going to lie and act like it's all violent on January 6th, or that it's all nonviolent, what is the point of that?
It's just theater, right?
Because you're not persuading anybody.
You're not adding any new information.
You're engaging in this weird theater where you both know you're lying about the description of what happened, and yet you act like you're not.
That's not a debate.
What is that? It's just theater, isn't it?
Two people lying while the other one knows they're lying.
That's like a stage production.
And you see it and you go, what happened to us?
What happened to humans That they act like things that are clearly not binary are binary, just so they can have this weird theatrical disagreement over something that nobody disagrees over.
Yes, it's a pro-wrestling model taken to politics.
Maybe Trump has something to do with that, because he did take the wrestling model to politics.
Well, I hope there's nobody in the comments who's arguing it was non-violent, because it looked like somebody was starting to do that.
I get that somebody died of a heart attack, etc., but it was a violent situation.
I don't think that's something we should debate.
There was an incursion, No guns, though.
That is kind of remarkable.
The number of guns that weren't there is remarkable.
Now, is there any Black Lives Matter protest being planned?
And if not, why not?
And have there been no major police shootings of black motorists, people who have been stopped by the police?
Has nobody died since Biden's been in charge?
Or is it just that we don't report it now?
The woke have been up for four years.
I don't know what that means.
Alright. It was a protest and a riot.
Blah, blah, blah. The CIA told Black Lives Matter to stand down.
Well, I don't know that we can make that assumption.
Yeah, it looks like Black Lives Matter just did what?
Got everything they wanted?
Do you think they got everything and they're done?
An assertive, self-directed tour of the government building.
I like that. And how about Antifa?
Antifa didn't even have demands, I mean, other than getting rid of the system itself.
Did Antifa just decide there's nothing to protest over?
You realize, right, That we can say with a fair degree of certainty at this point that neither Antifa nor BLM were natural protests?
Can we say that at this point with certainty?
Or would you still say that's speculative?
Because if they were real, nothing changed to satisfy their demands.
Nothing changed. So if they were ever real, they should be, you know, as big as possible right now.
I mean, they should be firing up.
Summer should be lit, right?
Literally lit.
So could we say at this point that the Hunter Biden, the way that that story is being handled, let's say his artwork with the anonymous buyers, that's proof that the intelligence agencies and the government and the media are colluding against the people,
isn't it? Can't you say that with certainty, without any extra information, that the way the Hunter story is being treated is It proves a nexus of the intelligence agencies, the government, and the media.
Now, likewise, can we say the same thing about the lack of protest from BLM and Antifa?
Can we say that the reason they're not happening is that the intelligence agencies decided that they wouldn't, and that the media probably wouldn't have covered it the same way anyway?
So it feels like we have confirmation of everything bad we ever imagined, with the exception of any election irregularities.
I would say that there's no proof of that.
But could there be?
Is it possible?
I was looking at a letter to the editor that was saying they should take Dilbert out of the newspaper.
And the argument was that I am spreading the, quote, big lie, and therefore Dilbert should be taken out of newspapers.
Have you ever seen me spread the big lie?
I'll reiterate my position, which is that we don't have evidence, or at least I don't.
I don't have any evidence that I would consider conclusive that the election was rigged.
So I don't have that evidence.
But I have said...
That you can guarantee that because of the nature of the system, it has vulnerabilities, and the intelligence agencies of all the major countries have a great incentive to either manage their own country's elections or even other countries' elections, that you could say with certainty that the American election process will be corrupted, we just don't know if it's already happened.
So it's either in our future, guaranteed, or it already happened.
Those are the only two possibilities.
If you're saying to yourself, no, I don't think an intelligence agency is going to get control of the elections, I would say, you know they have the tools to do that, right?
They have all the tools.
They can do that.
They would simply have to want to.
And do you think that the intelligence agencies are really somebody at the top Who makes a directive and writes it down and sends out a memo and then everybody does, you know, what the memo says?
No. I don't think intelligence agencies work that way.
There are simply people who know what would be good for the intelligence agencies or their view of what would be good for the world.
And they have the tools to make it happen.
And they can put pressure on private citizens to do the actual work.
So there's no fingerprint from an intelligence agency.
So you have to look at the intelligence agencies two ways.
One is that something comes from the top, but the other is just a lot of people independently knowing what, in their opinion, would make the world a better place, and maybe they don't want a paper trail.
Maybe they just make it happen by influencing private citizens mostly.
All right. Michael Harms, you've done 250 push-ups since the start of this podcast.
Well, congratulations.
I've often said that exercise is literally the best thing you could be doing while listening to this, partly because I do this the same time every day, and it's a guaranteed time, and roughly a guaranteed amount, around 45 minutes or more.
It's a perfect workout.
It'll keep your mind engaged at the same time as you're working out.
