My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Governor Newsom skips useless climate meeting
HOAX video of Kamala Harris
Regeneron injection gives 8 months protection
Trump incited an erection?
Prosecuting for political gain
Targeting people for their political views and ethnicity
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
So, in case you're wondering, while I'm printing out my notes here, because I'm a little bit behind, my wife did her IFR checkride yesterday.
How many of you know what that means?
An IFR checkride.
It means that she got her instrument rating for flying aircraft, which is a really big deal.
Apparently getting your instrument rating is about the hardest thing you can do.
Alright, why is this not working?
All right, we're going to have a smaller crowd today, which is just as well, since I'll be promoting revolution.
All right, let's see if I can look at your comments.
All right.
Good morning. Oh, you're heading over to the Kyle Rittenhouse trial?
What's this? Oh, Anne-Marie is going to the Rittenhouse trial.
We'll talk about that. Yeah, you know, one of the things I learned...
I'm following my wife as she's going through her pilot training, is that flying is a lot like learning photography was for my oldest stepdaughter.
She took photography class in high school.
And she took photography class in high school using regular film in old cameras at a time when nobody used film in cameras.
It was already all digital.
But the class required her to do this.
I actually had to search for special places to buy film because stores don't even sell it anymore.
That's how useless her class was.
But when you watch the IFR training...
So if you saw an example of an IFR class, I watched some of them online with her.
It is so complicated...
The map that pilots use, you have to be at a certain height in a certain space, and you can only be between here and there.
If you're in this space, you have to be controlled by this tower.
There's just a whole bunch of rules about what you can and cannot do in the air.
So if you thought you could take off and fly someplace, not so much.
I mean, just an amazing, immense amount of very specific little rules that...
Don't make any sense. So if you learn to fly instruments, let's say a cloudy day, so you're just looking at your instruments, it's pretty hard.
But here's what it could be.
Uh-oh, I flew into the clouds.
Autopilot. Now you're done.
The problem with flying in the clouds is twofold.
One is that you get disoriented, and even if the instruments say you're flying straight, you think, I know I'm turning, I know I'm turning, and you override your rational brain, which is telling you the instruments are saying everything's fine.
So the first thing is overriding your brain, and then the second thing is flying into a mountain, because you don't know where you're going.
It's one thing to fly flat, But you want to make sure you're not flying toward a mountain.
So if you have, in a modern airplane, GPS and autopilot, how much instrument rating do you really need?
But they teach you the whole thing because there are still plenty of planes that don't have those things.
But if you think about it, even I could fly a plane in clouds.
Where's the autopilot button?
Okay. There you go.
Pilots since 1992, and only one plane with autopilot.
Yeah, there have to be a certain level of plane before they have autopilot, and everything below that pretty much doesn't.
But remember, it's 2021.
There's no reason you couldn't build all your future planes with that function.
Yes, I know my microphone fell in.
All right, well, a disorganized mess, if that's not obvious.
And let's see if I can figure out how to look at your comments.
Ta-da! It worked.
Hey, everything's going well now.
Are you ready for the best show ever?
The best thing that's ever happened to you.
And what do you need to make this extra special?
Well, you need a cupper, a mug, or a glass, a tank, or a chalice, or a stein, a canteen joke, or a flask.
A vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
Including your antibodies.
No, especially your antibodies.
Go! Bob is thanking me for my notable boldness on Twitter lately.
Well, I'm not sure it's a notable boldness as it is...
There are certain red lines...
I've said this before about white people.
And maybe this is true of lots of other people, but I can only speak for my personal experience.
I feel as if white men especially have a characteristic, which is you can push us around a lot.
Because we're used to it.
If you're an adult white man, you're kind of used to getting pushed around.
And you don't let the little stuff bother you too much.
So you get the feeling that Like somebody snapped.
Oh, suddenly you went from flexible to, you know, revolutionary.
That's the way we're kind of designed or trained or something.
I don't know. But I know for myself I'm really, really flexible until I'm not.
Once I'm not, I'm really, really done being flexible.
So does anybody else have that?
You're flexible until you're not.
But when you're not, you're done.
Right? Yeah, I mean, so anybody who says, I'm looking a little bold, it may be just that something, something clicked.
You know, there was a red line, and I think that that red line is here.
We'll talk about that.
But first, what do you think of Governor Newsom, Governor of California, skipping the climate summit, the biggest problem in the world?
The climate, some say.
Versus staying home and apparently his alternate use of time was trick-or-treating with the kids.
What do you think of that?
Do you approve or not approve of the governor missing the most important meeting in the history of the world, the climate, and going trick-or-treating with his kids?
I approve. Not only do I approve, I applaud it.
Remember, if you can't say good things about your political enemies, you're probably not, you know, a rational member of the public.
Almost everybody's got something going on that's working.
In my opinion, that's the best thing he's ever done.
And I think the governor is actually a mixed bag.
He's a mixed bag.
There's plenty of stuff I wish he would do differently.
But he's not a basket case, right?
He's got some qualities. And one of those qualities is he made the right choice.
Because that climate meeting was useless, if we can be honest.
China didn't go. Russia didn't go.
Nothing got decided. It was useless.
But apparently his family and the kids formed an intervention and said, you're going away again?
It's been non-stop emergencies in California.
He's probably been working like crazy.
And he's just going to go away on Halloween.
And he just said, you know, screw it.
I'm going to stay home. So I would say this is the first example I've seen of a Democrat leader who cared about children.
Am I wrong? The first notable example of a Democrat leader caring about children.
That's what it looked like to me, so I'm going to applaud it.
Did you see Macron, head of France?
There was a video in which there was a little sign language interpreter, and they do the little cutout, so there's a little box in the corner, and there's a sign language interpreter.
Now, I was watching the interpreter, and I don't know sign language, but I realized that you could do a very credible impression of a sign language interpreter with just these instructions.
Are you ready? And I'll demonstrate for you.
After watching that interpreter, I realized that if you wanted to pretend you could do sign language, you would simply pretend you were explaining how to remove a very complicated bra.
Allow me to demonstrate.
This is either a sign language person or removing a very difficult and complicated bra.
Am I right?
That looked exactly like sign language, didn't it?
I think I nailed that.
All right, moving on.
In the coordinated fake news category.
So this is fake news that numerous outlets do at the same time.
Obviously coordinated.
And this fake news is that renewables are more competitive than coal.
In other words, solar and I guess wind are now cost competitive with coal.
True or fake?
Now as coordinated, apparently there's a number of A number of outlets saying the same thing today.
True or false?
Here's the correct answer.
I don't know. The second part of the correct answer is neither do they.
If there's one thing I can tell you, with really high confidence because I did this for a living for years.
I worked in a big corporation, two of them actually, in which my job in part was doing complicated analyses and figuring out what was the best financial move, this or that, and comparing them.
And I can tell you with complete certainty that the person who decides what the assumptions are gets to decide what the output is.
We're fooled into believing that the calculation Is the thing?
That's not the thing. It's the assumptions.
The assumptions that you put into it will determine what the end is.
And the assumptions are not math.
Assumptions are opinion. So all it is is an opinion put through a math filter so that when it's done it looks like it was math or science or facts or something like that.
But it wasn't. It was just opinions that are laundered through a model.
Let me give you an example. Do you think that they modeled, and I didn't look at the details, but just ask the question because it still works.
Do you think that they calculated the economic impact of outages?
Because at the moment, the renewables are more susceptible to outages.
Do you think if I looked at the analysis, they would have an actual number that they put on the impact of outages?
And how would they calculate that?
No, of course not. So somebody made an assumption about whether that's in or out.
Again, I don't know if it's in or out.
It might actually be there.
But the example will still serve to make the point, even if it is in there.
The point is that somebody made an assumption whether that should be in the calculation or not.
And it was the assumption that's going to drive the output, not the model, not the math.
It was just the assumption.
So if you think that any of this stuff is like math or rational thinking, it's not.
These are just assumptions that have been laundered through a model so that you think something fascinating happened.
All right, more on that point.
If you have inconsistent power...
Let's say because it's renewable instead of coal or some other thing.
Will new industries build a factory in your town?
And if they don't, would you even know that they decided not to?
And if you didn't even know if they decided not to, how do you put an economic estimate on that?
Oh, looks like we lost $3 billion because there would have been factories built here that would have produced a lot of money over time, but they didn't because we don't have dependable electricity here.
Now, again, I don't know if that specific example is as relevant as I might be making it sound like, but I want you to have the sense that there's a whole bunch of assumptions that make these things what they are, and it's the assumptions that drive them, not the math.
Here's another one. This will drive you crazy.
If we know, and the analysis says this, that the cost of solar is dropping fast, And we all agree with that, right?
The cost of solar per kilowatt hour or whatever is dropping fast.
Why won't it make sense to wait?
Do you think they modeled that?
Do you think they modeled go hard now while solar is at its current price versus just wait five years when the price is way down And then go hard.
Which one of those pays off better?
Because five years from now, you're buying the same resource at pennies on a dollar, and it will still last, I don't know, 20 years or whatever.
Do you think they modeled that?
I doubt it. I doubt it.
And if you haven't compared things to the alternative, have you modeled anything?
Not really. Not really.
I saw Elon Musk say that if you built 100 gigaplants, these are the enormous battery storage facilities, if you built 100 of them, you could store all the energy needed for the entire world.
Now, first of all, because Elon Musk is saying it, I put a little more credibility in that.
You know, even if it's off by 50 or something, it's still sort of in the ballpark.
And I ask you this question.
What would it take to build 100 giga plants?
And what do you do with the batteries that you're done with?
If you had 100 giga plants, where do you put the batteries?
I mean, I think it's solvable.
It's not unsolvable.
Just like nuclear waste, it's not unsolvable.
But do they include all these costs?
I don't know. So that's my only comment.
There's another fake news on social media anyway, not in the news news.
There's an edited video, it's a hoax, of Kamala Harris where she said that most people in the hospital, that virtually every person in the hospital is unvaccinated, she said.
But it got edited, they took out the un.
So it sounds like she's saying that every person in the hospital for COVID I only mention this for the benefit of all the people who said, I know the president called neo-Nazis fine people.
I saw it myself on the video.
And of course that was also edited maliciously.
So it never happened in that case.
And in this case Kamala Harris also never said that only vaccinated people are in the hospital.
Here's a lesson on vaccination persuasion.
I am not going to persuade you to get vaccinated or that they should be mandatory.
I'm anti-mandate. So let me say this again.
I'm anti-mandate.
You make your own decisions.
But this is a persuasion lesson.
And it's too late for them to go back, so I don't mind saying this.
But if somebody had hired me, and let's say I had been unethical, and I decided to work for them unethically, and to persuade people to buy into the mandate, here's how I would have done it.
Are you ready? The way they did do it is say, hey, there's a really good reason you should get this vaccination.
It's good for you. It's good for the country.
Go get your vaccination, and by the way, we're going to make it mandatory.
How'd that work out? Not so well, right?
A lot of pushback.
Here's how I would have done it from the start.
It's too late to do it now, so don't worry that I'm giving them ideas, okay?
Because it's way too late.
But if they'd done this from the start, imagine how much better it would have been.
This would be the first thing you ever heard about a vaccination mandate, and it would come from the government.
This is all hypothetical. They would say, we've decided to add the COVID vaccination to the list of required vaccinations.
We're going to add it to the list, the existing list, of required vaccinations.
Why is that better? Because if the first thing you say is that there's a list of required vaccinations, that's your frame.
Then people will say, oh, okay, I wasn't even thinking those terms, but I guess there is a list of required vaccinations.
Polio, for example, right?
And there's another one, I think there's another one that's required for school, maybe more than one.
But if you were to tell people, and again, If you're just joining, I'm not in favor of mandates, and I'm not in favor of brainwashing the public.
I'm giving you a lesson on how to brainwash the public.
I would have said, we're going to add it to the list, and immediately people would say, well, the other stuff on the list made sense, and it would immediately change how you saw it.
That's all. But it's too late.
They're not going to do that. And if they'd asked me to do that for them, I would have refused because it's unethical.
Alright, Regeneron, which I remind you, I did recently buy some of their stock.
Regeneron can also be administered in a shot.
Did you know that? So I thought Regeneron was just a drip.
You know, you had to put the needle in your arm and sit there for a drip.
But apparently that's just one of the ways.
You can get a shot.
Subcutaneous, they say.
And they found out that if you get the shot, you have something like eight months of protection at a very high level from the virus.
In other words, a shot of Regeneron acts very much like a shot of the vaccination.
Yeah, eight months.
So I guess you get eight months of protection.
Somebody says just the drip.
No, I read yesterday that they now have an injectable form.
So I think that's a fact.
So the injectable form that is a shot will do basically the same thing as the vaccination.
So here's what's interesting.
What are they going to call it?
Are they going to say one of these things is prophylactic?
And the others are vaccinations.
Because they have the same effect.
Now, they operate differently.
One kills the virus really quickly.
The other, I think, encourages your body to kill it.
You know, is that right?
Do I have that distinction?
But anyway, forget about the exact medical distinction.
Just accept that the mechanism is different.
I think that's safe to say.
But would that be enough for them to say one is a vaccination and one is not?
One is a therapeutic?
I don't think it matters what you call it.
It matters what it does. But I think we're going to be in that conversation pretty soon.
Here's the biggest example of loser think I've been seeing.
I've been telling people that doing your own research is an illusion because we can't do that.
Ordinary, normal people can't do their own research and come to better ideas about things that are complicated and have people on both sides.
Now, the exception to that is if all you're doing is researching to learn something.
Well, that works. That works.
There's nobody on the other side trying to confuse you.
So if you're trying to research what's the best way to exercise or diet or whatever, definitely do that.
That works for sure.
It's just this political stuff.
Doing your own deep dive on this, it just never works.
Or, more importantly, you don't know if it worked or not, but it feels like it did.
That's why it's dangerous. But here's the worst take I've seen.
That if information is being suppressed, it must be true.
How many of you think that's true?
That if there's somebody who's an official person, or if anybody in an official capacity, it could be a company or a government, if they're actively suppressing information, it's because it's most likely true.
What do you think? Well, my take is that most information that's suppressed is not true, right?
That's why it's suppressed.
Am I wrong that of all the things that are true, you can fit those in a thimble?
Let's just make an analogy here.
If you took all the things in the world that are true, you could put them in a thimble.
And then if you take all the things in the world that are not true, it would be the size of the entire universe.
So, generally speaking, the reason anything is suppressed is that it's wrong.
How do you know that that's the one thing they suppressed?
Well, okay, that one's true.
No, being suppressed doesn't tell you anything.
Nothing at all. Now, it is true that people do hide the truth, but it isn't true that if hidden, therefore, it's true.
So be careful about that.
Am I wrong that the problems of anxiety and depression simply didn't exist when I was a kid?
Now, I'm being hyperbolic, because of course they existed.
But not in the quantities we're seeing, right?
Because in my life, almost everybody I know has depression or anxiety right now.
Almost everybody. Do you know anybody who doesn't have anxiety and or depression?
It's pretty much everybody, isn't it?
Kids, adults. And I might be the only person who doesn't.
I was bragging about this recently.
I've got plenty of problems.
I'm not sure you'd want to trade places with me.
But I've got plenty of problems.
But as far as I know, I don't have a mental illness.
And I think that's kind of rare.
Isn't it?
How many of you could say that you don't have a mental illness?
Some of you say you don't.
Okay, good. A lot of you say you don't.
Good to know. Good to know.
I'd love to know the gender breakdown of that, though, and the age breakdown.
All right, but if I asked you if you had more anxiety than normal, you'd probably say yes, wouldn't you?
All right, let me change the question to, how many of you have definitely more anxiety now than, let's say, when you were younger?
How many of you have more anxiety?
Somebody says less.
A lot of people have more.
So I'm not sure at what point anxiety becomes mental illness.
There must be a point where normal anxiety becomes mental illness.
But... I would like to put out this thought.
The scaring children about climate change, because apparently that's a big part of what's making kids depressed, is climate change.
There's this new survey that says that 70% of Americans are now very or somewhat worried about global warming.
It's causing all this anxiety, especially in kids.
Correct me if I'm wrong. Scaring children about climate change is child abuse, yes or no?
Is it child abuse?
Because what are the children supposed to do about it?
It's child abuse.
I'm pretty sure this is just straight child abuse.
If they were adults and they could immediately go out and vote or do something, well, I'd say that's just fair game.
But... If you're scaring children, and there's not a damn thing they can do about it, it's just child abuse.
And I don't believe that anybody's telling them the Adams law of slow-moving disasters, which says, we'll figure this out.
Because we will figure this out.
I don't think they tell the kids, yeah, it looks like a big problem, but we always figure this out.
Who's saying that? I don't think they are.
I think they're saying you're going to grow up into a world that's on fire.
Imagine what that would do to a kid.
As others have noted, when I was a kid, we were told that the odds of dying in a nuclear holocaust were something like 50-50.
The odds were really high.
We literally did nuclear drills.
My father built a bomb shelter in the basement where I lived, and we thought we were going to die.
Now, how much of a mental influence did that have on me?
A lot, I think. A lot.
I'm pretty sure that messed with my brain.
And, you know, I don't think I have a mental illness at the moment, but I can imagine some people were pushed over the edge by that.
Alright, speaking of polls, a CNN poll says three-quarters of the public think Facebook is making life worse.
Three-quarters say Facebook is making life worse.
What have I told you about every poll and the 25% number?
No matter what the poll is, 25% of the public will get the wrong answer.
It doesn't even matter what the topic is.
Here it is again.
25% of the people think Facebook is making the world better.
Okay. Okay.
So, I've got a general comment about that, that when you turn fear into money, civilization is doomed.
And we found a way to turn fear into money.
It's social networks.
Social networks, primarily in the news, I guess, in general, scares you.
It scares you about the other.
It scares you about everything until you click on something.
As long as that's our business model, we are actually doomed.
Now, the Adams Law of Slow-Moving Disaster says we'll figure out how to get past it.
But at the moment, we're on a doomed trajectory.
A doom trajectory.
Because our primary business model of the world is turning fear into money, and the only way that can go is the end of civilization.
The only way that can go.
Because there will just be more and more fear until everything breaks down.
There's no other way it can go.
Except that the Adams law of slow-moving disaster says, we'll figure out something.
I feel confident we'll figure out a way around this.
We figure out a way around everything.
But at the moment, it is a doomed path.
You just have to understand that so you're serious about fixing it.
I got a lot of pushback about doing your own research and me saying that you think you can do it, but it's not a thing.
Normal people can't do their own research.
Maybe some people can.
Maybe. I mean, I don't know if I've ever met that person.
But I would agree, in sort of a general, conceptual way, there might be people who have those skills.
It's a big world.
Somebody does. But most people think they have those skills and don't.
That's where the trouble is. Oh, I read this post on Facebook, so I did my own research.
No, you didn't, because you don't know if it's true.
And you can't tell. You don't have the skill to know if it was true or false.
You could read a lot more articles, and you still wouldn't have that skill.
You could read a thousand articles, and you still wouldn't have that skill to know what's true and what isn't.
But you think you do.
You think you do. And I think the problem is that there are so many instances where doing your own research worked.
But it's closer to chance.
So can't you all think of an example where doing your own research definitely worked?
You even got the right answer before the news caught on.
You solved a problem that the standard thinking couldn't solve.
You've all had that experience.
But don't be fooled by that one time you got it right.
My point is not that it never works, because sometimes you can get the right answer and do a bad job of researching and still get the right answer by accident.
Because you weren't smart about how you researched it.
But you won't know if you're right.
That's the problem. You can be right.
You just don't know when you're right.
That's the problem. Does that make sense?
It doesn't help to be right if you can't tell when you're right and when you're not right.
Was that clear? It doesn't help to be right if you can't tell you're right versus when you're wrong.
It all looks the same to you. All right.
In hypnosis class years ago, when I learned to be a hypnotist, our instructor told us something that I did not believe.
Told me something that I was like, eh, that's a little too far.
Like, I'm willing to buy into a lot of this hypnosis stuff, but that's a little too far.
And it was this. That when people make a, let's say, a Freudian slip...
They use the wrong word.
It actually is meaningful.
Because it does tell you where their brain is.
And that it's not an accident.
And it's not a simple accident.
Now, when I first heard that, I did not believe it.
And the example he gave was this one.
He said, let's say you're on a date and you've asked a woman out.
That would be the example here.
And it's your first date and you don't know if she's interested in you physically or not.
And you're thinking about going to dinner.
And the woman says, oh, God, I'm glad we're going to dinner.
I'm just ravished.
I'm just ravished.
Now, the word she wanted was famished.
Before I took hypnosis classes, I would have said, oh, that's just two words that feel about the same in your head and they got mixed up.
The hypnosis instructor would say, no, that's somebody telling you they want to have sex with you.
And so, one day, I was out with, many years ago in my single days, I was out with a woman who later ended up being my partner for 15 years, a co-worker.
And she said, while she was sitting at the table, I'm ravished.
It was the only hint she gave, the only hint that she was interested in me more than a co-worker.
That was it. The one and only hint.
And it was enough.
It was enough. Because as soon as I heard it, I said, oh, game on.
And we lived together for 15 years.
Now, I will tell you that that has happened more than once.
I mean, not in the sexual context, but the wrong word choice.
The number of times that wrong word choice does, in fact, tell you something useful is crazy.
Now, will I say that there's science behind it?
No. I mean, maybe, but I'm not aware of any.
So I can't tell you that it passes some kind of randomized controlled trial.
Might just be my confirmation bias, right?
That would be a reasonable assumption.
But you have to see how many times it works.
So all I'll do is ask you to keep an eye on it.
It might take you 20 years to see the pattern.
But keep an eye on it.
This leads me to my next story about Adam Schiff, who on an interview recently referred to the Trump inciting an insurrection.
That's what he hoped to say.
He hoped to say that Trump had incited an insurrection.
What he actually said was Trump incited an erection.
Maybe those are just two words that sounded enough alike that his brain just confused him and it doesn't mean anything at all.
Just a normal kind of a slip of the tongue.
The other possibility that seems far more likely to me, and I do believe, so the sarcasm is off, I'm going to tell you something that sounds like a joke, but I'm deadly serious.
I believe that Adam Schiff gets a sexual charge out of attacking Trump.
That's my honest belief.
My honest belief. And by the way, I was picking this up way before he made this verbal slip.
He looked like a guy who was turned on by the whole situation.
Am I right? If you look at him, he looked almost like he was aroused when he talked about anything that was bad for Trump.
It didn't look political to me from the start.
It never looked political.
It always looked sexual.
Just my opinion, right?
We can't read his mind, so there's no way to confirm it.
I'm just telling you that the totality of my experience, including everything from reading body language, which is pretty sketchy stuff, to hypnosis class, to just my life experience, he looks like a person who has some sexual...
Tingle about all of this.
And by the way, I wouldn't say that I can't think of anybody else I'd say that about.
Can you? I mean, I certainly see people enjoying, you know, you can see that they're enjoying the back and forth of things.
You know, I think Adam Swal- Eric Swalwell, I think he kind of enjoys being on TV and stirring things up and stuff.
But I don't get any sense he's getting a sexual thrill out of it.
But when I watch Schiff, It just looks like he's enjoying it too much, if you know what I mean.
Again, we can't read his mind, so I can't say that's a fact.
I'm just saying it's my experienced opinion.
All right. Did you hear that the QAnon shaman, you know the guy with the, was it the bison horn hat, who was part of the protest on January 6th?
It looks like the prosecutors want to give him four years in jail.
For what?
Trespassing in a photogenic costume?
Now, I'm not saying there were no crimes committed.
There may have been crimes committed.
But did you see any crime that looked like a four-year jail sentence?
At all? Anything?
And I believe that the prosecutor is saying fairly clearly that they want to make an example out of him.
Boy, is that going to work.
If they make an example out of the QAnon shaman, they're going to get exactly what they wanted.
They're not going to like it.
But they're going to get exactly what they thought they were asking for.
So be careful what you ask for.
Government, Department of Justice.
I'm going to tie a couple of stories here together.
The next one is Kyle Rittenhouse.
If you've been following that case, you know that as of yesterday, we can conclude that there is no evidence whatsoever of a crime.
In fact, all of the prosecution's witnesses either provided no evidence of a crime or provided direct evidence that it was self-defense, in their own words.
Actually, only one of them was still alive, I guess.
So what do you do in a situation where somebody was arrested, and even as far as toward the end of the trial, the prosecutor has not presented anything that a reasonable person would see as evidence of a crime?
Actually nothing. Actually nothing.
Now, my understanding is that in a case like this, the defense at the end would ask for a motion to dismiss.
They'd say something like, well, we don't even have to give you our closing statement because there was no evidence of a crime.
I think you all saw what we saw.
Let's just dismiss this.
Now, apparently that almost never gets accepted.
Because it's more credible for the system if the jury decides.
You don't want the judge to override the jury unless it's like a real weird situation.
So I get that.
I get that sometimes the process has to run through.
But here's my problem.
There's a judge whose job it is to make sure justice is done.
This judge is watching the same thing we are, same thing the jury is, and that judge knows that no evidence has been presented of a crime.
Do you know what justice would look like in this case?
What justice would look like is releasing the judge, it would be the judge is saying, look, let's stop right here, Because you don't have any evidence of a crime, so I'm not even going to send it to a jury.
And on top of that, I'm going to ask the bailiffs to arrest the prosecutor.
The prosecutor should be arrested and jailed for what he's done so far, which is ruin Kyle Rittenhouse's life by prosecuting a crime that doesn't exist.
And he had no evidence of it.
Now, I don't think some other people have said that the prosecutor was surprised by the testimonies.
I don't think so. I think the prosecutor knew exactly what everybody was going to say, and he knew that he didn't have any evidence of a crime, and he prosecuted anyway.
If you know you don't have evidence of a crime and you prosecute anyway for what I would have to say are political reasons, I think you need to go to jail for a long time.
I think the prosecutor should get 10 years in jail.
Based on what we've seen publicly.
I wouldn't need any extra evidence.
Just what we've seen publicly.
If you put me on the jury, I would jail that prosecutor for 10 years.
Because what the prosecutor is doing is destroying the whole system.
And targeting one ethnicity.
Yeah, I'm going there.
What do the Kyle Rittenhouse and the QAnon shaman have in common?
They're adult white men who probably are pro-Trump.
I think we can say that.
I mean, I don't know if Kyle Rittenhouse is even political.
But, you know, he probably leans pro-Second Amendment, if you know what I mean.
And I think that you have to see both of these cases as the canaries in the coal mine.
For hunting Republicans.
If either of them are convicted, and let me put a nuance here, the QAnon shaman probably violated some laws, trespassing at the very least.
So if he gets convicted for trespassing and gets a time served or a fine or something, that's okay.
That's okay. But if he gets four years, and or Kyle Rittenhouse gets convicted, Then a new standard has been set for prosecuting adult white men.
You just have to think that maybe they're part of some white supremacist movement, and then it doesn't matter what they did.
As long as you can smear them with association, you can convict them right in public, right in front of everybody, for nothing.
And you don't even have to cover it up.
You can put her right in front of everybody and say, I'm going to send Kyle Rittenhouse to jail because we don't like the Second Amendment and guns and we don't like Republicans and we don't like white men.
So Kyle Rittenhouse has to go to jail.
So here's my take on this.
If the QAnon shaman gets four years, I think the government has to be overthrown.
Can I say that? At what point do I go to jail?
Does anybody know?
Now, I'm not encouraging you to do it, because you make your own decisions.
I'm just saying that I personally, if the QAnon shaman gets four years, that's war.
That's war. And I'm down, just personally, I'm not going to encourage you to do anything, I'm down for overthrowing the government on that basis.
Because, you know, I warned you before Biden was elected, I said if he was elected, Republicans would be hunted.
This is that.
This is that.
These are Republicans being hunted.
Right in front of you.
Nobody's hiding any of this.
This is right in front of you.
And so, at the very least, the Department of Justice needs to have some firings over this QAnon shaman thing, if they really pursue this.
And at the very least, you know, Biden would have to fire people, but he's too degraded to do that.
I don't see Biden firing anybody.
I just don't think he's in charge.
And nobody else is going to do it.
So I think we would have to get serious...
Well, no, I'll just say I'll get serious.
I'm not going to talk you into anything, because I don't want you to get arrested like the QAnon shaman.
But just personally, I would consider that cause for insurrection.
So I'm certainly hoping it doesn't happen, because this would be an example of hunting white people, white men in particular.
And if this holds up or goes the way the prosecutor wants it to go, then the government has to be overthrown.
That's my opinion. Now, at what point is it illegal to have that opinion?
Can anybody advise me?
Any lawyers there? I know there are always a bunch of lawyers watching this.
So, any lawyers? What can I say in public about overthrowing the government?
Well, a good question.
Define overthrow. I'm not saying militarily, so I'm not suggesting anything military.
But I don't think anything military is required whatsoever.
I think that public opinion, when it reaches whatever, 70%, 75%, guess whatever it wants.
So the way I would overthrow the government would be by persuasion.
And you could just wait to 2022 and have it done that way.
And that would be a good way to do it.
And I would consider that overthrowing the government, essentially getting rid of them.
I'm not saying we should overthrow the republic, and I'm not saying that we should put me in charge, or somebody else specifically in charge.
I'm just saying that this is a complete failure of government.
If you're targeting people for their ethnicity, and that's exactly what's happening here.
They're being targeted for their ethnic...
And also their political views.
These are just political prisoners.
How many political prisoners are there right now that are just Republicans?
Does anybody know the number?
The number of Republican political prisoners.
Because there's two that we know of, the QAnon shaman and Kyle Rittenhouse.
That is very clever memeing somebody's doing over on Locals.
Yeah, I do have the right of freedom of speech, but can you call for insurrection directly?
Is that legal? Does anybody know?
I don't think you can call for a violent anything, and I wouldn't want to necessarily...
I don't have any desire to change the system of a republic.
It's just that the people there would have shown themselves to be essentially criminal enemies of the people.
And you really can't have leaders who have proven to be criminal enemies of the people.
I would say the prosecutor in the Kyle Rittenhouse case is just a criminal.
And calling him a prosecutor at this point, I don't even think is fair.
That doesn't even feel like what's going on.
He's just a criminal pursuing a crime right in front of you.
That's all. Dershowitz says as long as people can offer a...
Any kind of a dissenting opinion, it's free speech.
Is that the standard?
It's a good standard.
All right. I guess I made that point.
All right. And here are some of the reasons that the prosecutor wants to prosecute the QAnon shaman.
The attempted coup, the prosecutor wrote...
Wait, what attempted coup?
This prosecutor says there was an attempted coup.
That's not an evidence. Can a prosecutor say something is a coup when there's no evidence of it?
Has made us all question the safety and security of the country in which we live.
Well, nothing's made me question it more than watching this criminal try to put Kyle Rittenhouse in jail.
And he said those enormous harms borne out of the acts of his defendant must be deterred so that we never see a similar assault.
In other words, he's saying directly we want to make an example of the QAnon shaman because he peacefully walked around in a photogenic outfit in a place he wasn't supposed to be.
So... Do you ever see...
Anybody ever watch Doctor Who?
And if there's anybody who's a Doctor Who fan, you can help me on the quote here, because I'm going to paraphrase something from Doctor Who.
Do you remember when he had some issue with, I guess it was whoever was playing the Prime Minister of Great Britain, and he had some kind of dispute with the Prime Minister, and he said he was going to take down the whole government?
And the Prime Minister was like, what can you do?
How can you take down the whole government?
And Doctor Who said, I can do it with three words.
And she just sort of dismisses him and walks away.
Then Doctor Who goes over and whispers to one of the top aides, she looks tired.
Is that the right quote?
She looks tired?
Can anybody fix my quote, please?
Oh, don't you think she looks tired?
I think you remember.
Don't you think she looks tired?
And that was the end of the show.
And the implication was that he brought down the government with just those words.
Now, that's the TV version of it.
I don't think those words would bring down the government.
But you can see how...
You could see how they might.
In other words, what he did was simply reframe something or create a frame that wasn't there, which is that she looked tired.
And all you have to do...
Yeah, the sleepy Joe, right?
And all you have to do is put that out there.
If it's the right idea, it can topple a government.
So, could I topple a government?
Yeah, I could. I would argue that anybody with my skill set could.
Now, that doesn't mean they could on every try, right?
So if I tried ten times, I don't know, maybe once.
Maybe once it would work.
So I'm not claiming it's like some magic bullet or something.
But somebody with my skill set could actually take down a government, if you have a big enough platform.
And I also have a big enough platform.
I've said before that if I get to a million users, I'll be running the country.
I'm sorry, a million followers on Twitter.
I think I'm up to 660,000.
2022 is coming, and 2024.
If you would like me to have more influence, tell your friends to follow me.
Preferably your friends who won't hate following me.
You know who they are.
And see if you can get it to a million.
Because if my follower count gets to a million, I'm kind of unstoppable at that point.
I think that's roughly where the point of no return is, where the government would have to kill me.
They'd probably have to assassinate me if I got a million followers.
Now, what I know that you don't know is that a lot of people have already sniffed around to figure out if I'm working for a foreign power or what the hell's going on with me.
Because a lot of people can't figure out what my game is.
What's your game? Why are you even doing this?
What's your plan?
Believe it or not, my plan is to be a patriot.
And I know that people don't accept that.
And I'll tell you where it comes from.
I'm going to tell you exactly where it comes from.
When my first marriage ended...
One of the bad things about being a stepdad is that you lose not only the wife, but the kids that you may have helped raise.
So, when I got divorced, I lost everything, right?
I mean, basically my entire structure that mattered, you know, children and wife.
And I remember saying to myself that, until then, I hadn't even really used social media much because my ex I thought it was basically an access for too many women to get to me, I guess.
Which would be true. I mean, social media does cause massive marital problems, so she wasn't wrong about that.
But I didn't use social media because I put the family first, so to speak.
But as soon as the divorce happened, I thought, I don't have any purpose.
Literally, it was waking up with no purpose.
Because my purpose had been maximizing the family benefit.
And so I was searching for a purpose because the alternative is to just end your life, basically.
And I felt like I still had some more value to give.
And I thought it would feel meaningful to me to have value.
And I made a promise to myself.
And everything you see from here on in is based on that promise.
And I've told you before, there's a difference between wanting and deciding, right?
Difference between wanting something and deciding.
When you want something, you don't necessarily do anything about it.
When you decide, you'll do anything.
You'll do whatever it takes, because you've decided.
So that's the difference between deciding and wanting.
It's what you're willing to do.
And I decided that day that I belonged to the world from that point on.
Because up until the divorce, I belonged to the family.
And if it was a conflict between what was good for the family and what was good for the world, I'd pick the family.
But once that association ended, I wanted something else that would make me feel like I was doing something useful.
Because I didn't want to have the...
I do possess a unique set of talents, if I can say it that way.
And I thought it would be wasted if I didn't have anything to do.
And so I literally said out loud, and I've said it many times since then, that I belong to the world now.
Meaning that if it's not good for the world, I'm not in it.
And America first.
So let me say this as clearly as possible.
America first, but also good for the world.
And I think those are usually fairly compatible.
Not always, but usually compatible.
What's good for America tends to be pretty good for the world.
Not always. So when you see me do stuff like this, that's the reason.
That's the reason. The reason is, if I'm not doing something useful, I'm not interested.
And I need to be interested.
I can't wake up if I'm not interested.
Now, I'm very interested.
And in 2016, 2015 actually, when I saw that Trump came into the race, that was the moment something clicked with me, and I realized I might be late.
Hold on. And I realized that this would be something I could handle.
How many of you remember that when Trump first entered the race, he was just being called a clown, and nobody took him seriously?
And when I wrote my, then became famous at the time, clown genius piece, I reframed Trump...
To be a master persuader.
The four-dimensional chess, three-dimensional chess thing.
And that became the frame that allowed people who would ordinarily not support such craziness, it allowed them to do it.
I think I made that happen.
Now, everything else had to happen too, right?
So it's not like one thing is responsible for Trump's success.
Everybody who did anything useful probably had to do everything that they did or else it wouldn't have happened, especially what Trump did, right?
But that was the missing piece.
The missing piece was that there was no frame that could make him make sense as a president.
And I provided the frame.
And... And Alex Jones destroyed Hillary.
Right, there were a lot of things that happened, so you can't say one person is responsible for anything.
And so, I picked things where I think my special skill set would have some impact, and I only do it if I think that it's clearly what's right for the world.
Trump, I knew, could come in and break the things that needed to get broken, and he did.
He broke the things that needed to get broken.
We think of everything differently now.
And he did that.
That's what I wanted. So I got out of Trump exactly what I hoped to.
I wanted him to just break the way we were thinking about everything.
And he just broke the hell out of it.
So... So for those who are wondering...
And I think that the reason I was puzzling to some powerful entities who came sniffing around is that my motivation is sort of hard to understand.
And I think it's because it's rare.
Now, it's selfish...
I mean, if you're always looking for the selfish part, oh, it's plenty selfish.
It's plenty selfish.
Because it's the only thing that makes me feel good.
So I'm doing it to feel good.
I hope it's good for you, too.
But yeah, it's ultimately selfish, if you want to think of it that way.
