Episode 1437 Scott Adams: The Big Lie, Bigger Lies, and Lying Liars
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Starlink, a new way to get internet
Overdose deaths exceed COVID deaths
Fulton County Georgia, vote counting
The phrase..."the big lie"
Curious push to cancel Tucker Carlson
General Milley's fear of a Trump coup
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
All right, before we start, YouTubers, can you tell me if you can hear me?
I'm trying something new with my audio, which is a splitter that's charging my iPad at the same time it's producing audio.
So I think it's working.
I don't see any complaints. Now, if you would like to enjoy this, And I know you would.
And I'm talking about really enjoy it.
Not just the usual delight that you always get.
But I'm talking about taking it up a level.
Well, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a diner, a canteen, a jug or a flask or a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine here today.
The thing that makes, what, everything better?
Yeah, everything. And it's called the simultaneous sip and it's going to happen right now.
Go. That's good stuff.
Good stuff. I can feel every particle in my body, every molecule, every corpuscle.
I feel a little bit better.
Well, do we have stories today?
Oh, man!
Oh, man! Things are getting good.
You can feel the 2022 election getting closer.
It's almost like a tangible thing now.
But let's talk about the good news first.
Elon Musk's Starlink, which is the network of low-Earth satellites, launched by Musk's company, SpaceX, I think, People are using it already.
I'm not sure if it's still in beta or if it's in production mode, but rural people are signing on and getting tremendous internet speeds.
So you're going to have an entirely new way to get internet, I think, everywhere.
Everywhere in the world.
And what does it mean to the world if everybody can get internet connectivity From Elon Musk.
Does it mean, for example, that China won't be able to block the Internet?
Right? How would China block Elon Musk's satellites?
How would you do that?
Could he even do it?
And so this is my big question.
Or Cuba, or any place else.
Here's my big question.
Did Elon Musk Did he just fix everything?
Did he? Because can't you easily imagine that the solution to everything is better communication?
If people actually knew what was happening and were not censored, doesn't everything work better?
You get more democracy, dictators fall, markets are more efficient.
Am I wrong?
It looks like Elon Musk is this close to fixing everything.
Just everything.
Because that's all it would take, if you think about it.
If everybody could talk to everybody without the government or anybody interfering or getting cancelled or being kicked off the platform or whatever else, doesn't it fix everything?
You know, not right away, but in the long run, you know, the good forces, it seems like, would rise.
And the bad forces would have trouble if they couldn't control communication.
So it's one of these things that just feels like a little business story over on the side.
It's like, oh, we got another. Looks like we have another way to get internet for many other ways.
Here's another one. I'm not sure that's the case.
This might be everything.
And it's just like one of Elon Musk's other businesses.
It might just change everything.
Dr. Nicole Sapphire points out in a tweet that the U.S. now has more people dying from drug overdoses every day than from COVID-19.
So it's about time to rethink our priorities.
When you're in the middle of a pandemic, it's all about the pandemic, and it should be.
But it's time to start thinking about our other priorities, and it's time to get serious about China as the source of much but not all of these deaths.
And I'll say again, we should stop, we should just close our embassies with China.
We should just withdraw our diplomats and close diplomatic relations with China until they stop sending fentanyl.
That should be the opening bid for relations.
Just no relations.
If you can't stop sending us fucking poison, that's it.
We'll just be done with you. Now, I would think that if China looked at its total strategic situation, it might say, well, we did like killing you by the tens of thousands every year, but all things considered, maybe we'll stop doing that because we also need relations with the biggest country in the world.
I think Trump could have pulled this off.
He didn't. And I criticize him greatly for failing on the fentanyl front.
But at least he took a run at it.
At least he tried.
But, I mean, he failed completely.
Nothing stopped. I'd like to see him take another run at it, frankly.
So, is anybody watching the story with Tucker Carlson?
Anybody? So here's what's happening.
There's sort of a big picture and a little picture.
The little picture, which could later be a big picture, is that Tucker is talking about the election irregularities.
Now, that's the small picture.
Here's the bigger picture. In the last several years, the left has been one by one picking off voices on the right.
Now, many of those voices have self-cancelled, done things which got their asses cancelled.
But you've got Rush Limbaugh passed away.
You've got, for whatever reason, we don't talk about Hannity as much.
I'm not sure what changed there.
But it seems to me, yeah, Bill O'Reilly is off of Fox News, etc.
All for different reasons.
But correct me if I'm wrong, Tucker Carlson is now the most important voice on the right.
Who would disagree with that?
Any disagreement? It looks to me that Tucker Carlson is the only one who takes on the hard stories.
While also being, you know, in prime time and having a huge audience and being respected, etc.
Yeah, you know, Greg Gottfeld's more of a special case because, you know, he's half entertainment, half news.
So he's sort of a hybrid.
You wouldn't compare him to the Hannity's or the Tucker Carlson's.
Sort of a different game.
But in terms of who moves the needle...
It's Tucker, right? I'm seeing the comments, everybody agreeing with that statement.
So whether you like Tucker or not, I think you'd agree that he's the most important voice on the right.
Now, some of that is from his own good work.
Maybe most of it is from his own good work.
But it's also true that the other voices have been trimmed away, wouldn't you say?
And so his voice rose by simply surviving.
And also being excellent at what he does.
So here's the thing.
Tucker Carlson is talking about Fulton County in Georgia.
And apparently there's some information that he's reporting.
I don't have any independent information about that.
Let me pause again.
To talk to YouTube, those of you on Locals, if you don't mind, I've got a little message for the people on YouTube.
Stop complaining about the volume.
The problem's on your end.
YouTube has low volume for some people on some videos and has nothing to do with the setup.
As you can see in the comments, the sound is fine.
Many, many people are telling you the sound is fine.
So if you want to talk about the sound, just go somewhere else.
Okay? Just go somewhere else.
Anyway, Tucker's talking about some new information that says the votes in Fulton County in Georgia in 2020.
So here are some of the things that come out of that reporting.
So there are a number of votes that were counted more than once.
And the evidence for that seems solid.
So these are things we seem to know with pretty high certainty that some number of votes, a significant number, not necessarily enough to change the result, but a significant number, Were counted more than once.
And if you've seen the evidence of it, they can show they were counted more than once.
You can see the picture of it.
You can tell very easily it's the same ballot, and you can see that it was counted more than once.
Very clear. But we don't know the total number of them yet.
More than 100,000 ballot tally sheets were missing for months after the election, and then when they showed up, A number of them were fraudulent.
Meaning that the tally on the outside didn't match or even close to the actual count of the bag or whatever that was in.
So we know that that happened.
And it happened several times.
That can be confirmed.
So now we know that vote tallies were fraudulently changed.
And we know that some significant number of votes were counted twice.
On top of that, Tucker was reporting that there were piles of ballots with no folds in them.
I'm not sure how accurate this part is, but since everything would have to be folded to be mailed, anything that didn't have a fold on it, and apparently it looked like it was machine reproduced as opposed to filled out by people, that would suggest fraud, if any of that's true.
Of course, we would need confirmation for that.
Now, we're also hearing some rumors that the Maricopa stuff has also uncovered some amount of confirmed irregularity, but we don't know if it's trivial or a lot, so we're still waiting to hear about that.
So, what would be the tip-off, let's say hypothetically, Let's say hypothetically there were big problems with the election and I don't have evidence that any court has produced that such a thing is happening.
So just so I don't get cancelled, no court has shown evidence of widespread fraud.
Are we all on the same page?
No court has found widespread fraud.
But we also know courts are not the place to look for it, right?
It's also true That your lawnmower has never launched a rocket into space.
It's also true that no bologna sandwich has ever filed a patent.
But it's true that the courts did not find any widespread fraud.
And also, no bologna sandwich has ever filed a patent.
Those two things are true.
And so I think that means something, right?
So here's what's interesting.
If Tucker Carlson is going after the big lie...
Well, let me back up a little bit.
I heard Robert Barnes on the Viva Barnes podcast, which is excellent.
I keep recommending it.
He said there was a tell for a lie.
If somebody said something is 1,000% not true, that if somebody goes up to 1,000%, it's sort of a tell for lying.
And I thought about that and I thought, I'm not sure, you know, these tells are not 100% kinds of things, right?
They don't always mean what they look like they're indicating.
But I thought to myself, that does sound true-ish.
You know, it kind of rings true.
But let me give you another example that's sort of along those lines.
The big lie.
The phrase, the big lie.
Do you think that the news needed to brand the big lie if the only story was that it wasn't true?
Why is it that this story got to brand the big lie?
Whereas other stories, I don't know if they get branded, do they?
We just call them fake news or not fake news.
We just say it's true or it's not true.
But this got branded.
And all the big media entities used the brand.
Does that sound like something that a news person came up with on their own?
Do you think somebody in the news business said, hey, let's call it the big lie.
Do you think so? Yeah, and of course the purpose of it is that it's a Hitler analogy.
So it makes anybody in the Trump Organization look like a Hitler-like entity because the big lie comes directly from Nazi propaganda.
But do you think the...
You've been watching the news people forever.
Do you think that the news people are clever enough To pull off that kind of a persuasion move, to call it the big lie, and make it stick, because it's sticking really well.
Do you think so? Because I don't see evidence of that skill set in the media itself.
Where would that skill set be?
If it's not the news people who are trained to come up with propaganda of that quality, because that's really high-quality propaganda, Who's got those kinds of skills?
Well, I do.
I have those kinds of skills, but it wasn't me.
Who else? Yeah, it's the CIA. Right.
It's somebody associated with or trained by an intelligence agency.
When you see the big lie, that's like a thousand percent.
It's this glaring signal that they're covering up fraud.
That doesn't mean they are.
One possibility is that there's somebody in the news organization who is really good at branding and maybe just wanted to brand this thing.
Maybe it was CNN. Maybe it was Jeff Zucker.
It's possible. You know, you could get lucky, right?
It's possible that somebody could hit on, you know, just the right thing that's stuck in people's minds and people liked it.
They just copied it. Because things go viral all the time and not necessarily from experts who created a viral thing.
But if you wanted to look at what It obviously looks like, which is not what it necessarily is, right?
So let's say that sometimes things look obviously like something, but that doesn't mean it is that, right?
We could be fooled. Well, let me tell you what it looks obviously like.
Now that we know that there is significant fraud in the election, we don't know if it's enough to change the election, but it's significant enough that you would at least change your rules and procedures to deal with it.
Would we agree with that as standard?
Could we say at this point, with what's already been reported, does it feel safe to say that we're not yet at a point where you'd say the election should be changed because of anything that's been reported, but you would definitely say that you should change your procedures for voting because it uncovered a number of problems that, if they had been larger, could have changed the outcome.
So I would say that the definition of significant voter fraud would be something that causes you to change the process.
Have we reached that level?
Don't you think we've reached the level where if anything that Tucker reported is true, any of it, you'd have to change the process to make sure it doesn't happen again, right?
I call that significant.
So in the context of reasonably high confidence that there's significant fraud, far short perhaps of changing an outcome, but still significant, And you have a propaganda, let's say, event.
Maybe that's just speculation.
But you've got this big lie thing that looks like it comes from professionals.
Because honestly, I've never seen anybody in the news business who had that kind of skill.
But everybody, not everybody, but the CIA would have that skill.
So it looks like, and I'm not claiming this is true, because I get cancelled for claiming anything like that, but if you were just going to say, well, what's it look like?
It looks like a stolen election, supported by the intelligence agencies of the United States, and then sold to the American people, Through the media to suppress any questions by calling it the big lie and making sure that if you questioned it, you would be labeled a Nazi.
Right? Now, if you were thinking, Scott, Scott, Scott, I don't think this is some big conspiracy.
Because if there was some big conspiracy, you'd see all kinds of signs of it.
For example, on the very day that Tucker Carlson reported on these irregularities, alleged, alleged irregularities, if it were really an organized effort by powerful people behind the scenes, you would think that just about the same day that Tucker did that, there would be a major movement to cancel Tucker.
Oh wait, there is.
Today. Today.
The hashtag TuckerIsKillingUs is matched with a video compilation in which there are claims that Tucker's made about, I don't know, the vaccine dangers or something.
And so they put together a clip that shows that his advice would get you killed.
If you followed his, I guess you could call it medical reporting or something, you could get yourself killed.
So do you think it's a coincidence That there's a full-on attack on Tucker Carlson at the same time that he's breaking the story, at the same time that he's the most important voice on the right.
Does that sound like a coincidence?
How about the fact that if any of this reporting about the election is true, even if it doesn't rise to the level of it would have changed the election, but if it's true, And if it's true to the level of being significant, meaning that rules would have to change to make it stop next time, Trump's your next president.
Right? Try to think of a situation in which we could know for sure that the election had been fraudulent in a bunch of ways, even maybe way less than enough to change the outcome.
But say we confirmed it was fraudulent in a number of ways.
Trump's your next president.
What the hell are you going to do about it?
I'm not saying it's good or bad.
I'm saying if Tucker's reporting holds up, Trump's your next president.
Because it will be too delicious to keep him out of office.
Because Trump term one...
Trump is a dangerous motherfucker.
Trump, term two, is a dangerous motherfucker on steroids.
And when I say dangerous, I mean to the system, not to the country.
What would he do if he didn't need to get re-elected?
Now, I'm not worried about the propaganda that he wants to take over the country, etc.
I'm not worried about that at all.
But I don't think Republicans would be able to resist letting a rabid dog into the house with their enemies.
I feel like if the pit bull wants to kill somebody and you need somebody killed, figuratively speaking, not actually killing people, I feel like it's going to be too hard to resist.
Because, you know, people don't really make decisions on policies and stuff like that.
They make decisions based on how they feel.
How would you feel if you believed that the election was fraudulent, and even if it didn't change the final outcome, they tried really hard?
How do you feel?
That'll get you to the election, won't it?
And what if they fixed these holes for next time?
Yeah. Yeah, the figuratively speaking part might not make it into the quote.
I see somebody saying that Trump wasn't really vaccinated.
I'm positive he was really vaccinated.
I don't think that story...
I don't think we'd miss that story.
But I'm positive he's really vaccinated.
All right, so we've got some interesting stuff going here.
I would say if Tucker does not get cancelled...
Republicans will sweep 2022, and then 2024 is going to be pretty much whatever they want.
Getting a lot of calls early in the morning.
It's weird. All right.
In related news, and it's probably not a coincidence, there's some reporting from The Guardian.
Now, The Guardian is a British publication.
Are the Brits on the same side as the United States?
They're our allies, right? But have you ever noticed that Britain seems to be prominently involved in some stories that we don't like, such as the Steele dossier?
So, I'm not entirely sure that Great Britain is always our friend.
Because, you know, your friends sometimes want to influence you for their own self-interest.
So it could be that Great Britain is not exactly as much a friend to the United States as they could be.
I'll just put that out there.
But now we have The Guardian, a British publication, saying that somehow they have these...
They got a hold of secret Kremlin papers...
That seemed to show a plot by Putin himself, directly involved, to make sure that a mentally unstable candidate, who they thought was Trump, allegedly, would get elected.
And that they were going to put all of their efforts in Russia, all of their assets were going to be put into getting Trump elected.
Now, have you ever heard more bullshit in your life?
Oh, and there's also a suggestion that there's really compromising material that Russia really does have that they just didn't use the first term, I guess.
But secret stuff they have.
But it's in the appendix, which is not included.
That's convenient, right?
The accusations of the compromising information, it's referred to in the appendix, but they don't have that.
They got the document, but not the appendix.
Totally believable. All right.
This is just a repeat of 2016, right?
All they're doing is just running the same games again because they worked last time.
Do you think that Putin would want a, quote, mentally unstable president of the United States to be his opponent?
Do you believe that because Putin thought that That Trump would cause more civil strife, that he wanted Trump to be his opponent?
A mentally unstable guy with the nuclear codes pointed at Russia.
That's what he wanted?
You think Putin is that fucking stupid?
There's no indication that Putin is that dumb.
None. In fact, In fact, if anything, Putin is so rational, it just drives you crazy.
He is very rational.
Even if he's evil, which apparently he is, he's very rational.
So I can't imagine that he'd want a mentally unstable person to be his opponent.
That doesn't seem like a good play.
So I'm going to say that this looks like a British intelligence operation.
It's just a speculation, right?
I don't have proof of any of that.
But to me it looks like a British intelligence operation to keep Trump out of the White House.
That's what it looks like to me.
Likewise, the...
Well, that's what it looks like.
Then we've got this story that apparently...
The chief of staff of the military, General Milley, was so afraid that Trump would try to do a coup, but he said, damn it, that coup will never happen because the military has all the guns and the coup plotters don't have enough guns to take over the country.
To which I say, how did we get...
As the chief of staff of the military of the strongest military power in the history of civilization, how did we end up with the dumbest fucking general in the world?
Because I've seen him talk now, and the whole time he's talking I think, is it my imagination?
Or is he really a dumb fuck?
And he's really dumb.
Like, actually just literally dumb.
And I don't say that about most people that I criticize.
Have you ever heard me call, like, you know, major political people that I disagree with, dumb?
I don't really use that word a lot.
Because I usually think that by the time you reach that level, you're pretty damn smart, even if you're evil and even if I don't agree with what you're doing.
I still say you're pretty damn smart.
But he looks actually dumb.
And when I saw him testifying...
He didn't sound smart at all.
And I do believe that you can tell.
I do believe that you can tell the difference between somebody who's dumb and smart if you just listen to him talk.
And he feels dumb.
And I don't feel safe with that guy in that uniform at all.
So that's a problem.
Do you think that there was ever a real risk of a coup just because the dumbest guy in uniform was afraid of one?
Even at the same time he realized that a guy in a Viking hat could not conquer the military of the United States, he still thought there was a risk.
Really? Now, certainly there was a risk of violence, and violence happened.
But that's not a risk of a coup.
How do a bunch of unarmed protesters, you know, with what, some blunt objects and some bear spray or something?
How did the chief of our military think that that was going to be somehow, you know, their zip ties?
How did the head of our military think that that was going to be a coup?
He acted as if he was the one who knew it wouldn't work.
Do you know who else knew that that wouldn't work?
Everybody. Everybody, including the people involved.
There was nobody who thought that that was a coup.
It's just purely the intelligence agencies manipulating the media to tell you it was a coup.
It's crazy. Trump teed up the problem by calling for supporters.
Yeah. Yeah, I'm not the one to say Trump is blame-free.
In case you're wondering.
Did Trump do everything he could have done to stop?
Scott's lying. Hey Dick, what are the odds that my critics are always named Richard?
They're literally dicks.
So Richard, may I call you Dick?
You are queuing me up perfectly for my next topic.
Thank you. Have you noticed a trend, which is that my critics have completely stopped criticizing my content?
They only go after me personally now?
And they say things like, your take on vaccinations was a hot mess.
What part? What would be a thing I said that you disagree with?
Just name one thing.
Now I'm lying, but we're not going to specify what you're lying about.
That's not important.
No, you're just lying.
About what? Oh, you're just lying.
And you know that something is working in what I'm saying, because if there were specific things people disagreed with, they would just say it.
They would say, you said X. Here's my data to show you're wrong.
Or, you said X was true, and my opinion is wrong, and here's why.
How hard would that be?
Even in a tweet, you could fit all that in.
But no.
Nope.
I'm going to move my microphone down a little bit because somebody...
I'm getting a lot of people talking on YouTube.
To turn up my sound.
And one has asked me to move my microphone up.
So I'm going to move it down a little bit.
Fuck you. I'm going to move it down a little bit.
So every time you tell me to move the volume up, I'm going to move it down a little bit.
Just go to locals if you want to hear the volume.
You'll have to subscribe. Somebody says China's doing it.
Alright, let's talk about the teachers' unions.
There's a good tweet here by Adam Dopamine, who said that Juneteenth first celebrated in 1865, but the public was ignorant to its existence until last year.
Well, I think the white public was ignorant to its existence.
I think the black public kind of knew what it was.
But the point still stands, that the teachers' unions failed to educate us about racially important events.
Clearly, they can't be trusted to teach critical race theory.
And I thought, that's a pretty good point.
The teachers who never told us, or at least most of us, about something called Juneteenth, how are they going to teach you critical race theory?
You went all your life without hearing about that, or at least many of you did.
All right. Cerno was right about the FBI lying.
I don't know about that story exactly.
Just looking at your comments now.
All right. That's all I've got for now.
And I'm going to go do some other things.
Keep watching for indications that the intelligence agencies are running everything.
Because at this point, the signals seem to indicate that pretty clearly.
And I wouldn't say there's proof, but certainly all the evidence is just sort of now really clear.
