All Episodes
Jan. 6, 2022 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
47:57
Episode 1615 Scott Adams: How January 6 Reversed the Presumption of Innocence and More

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: J6, a massive brainwashing operation Why I'm intentionally destroying my reputation "Really? Really?" Filter for reality Programming human brains with narratives Without fully auditable elections, assume corruption ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Well, welcome to the best thing that ever happened to you.
Sometimes I call this Coffee with Scott Adams, but today I'm going to call it an armed insurrection.
Because I've got arms, and sometimes I protest.
And if you have arms, and sometimes you protest, You, my friends, are an armed insurrection.
I'll tell you who else is an armed insurrection pretty soon when we get to the news.
Now, how would you like to do something that, oh, many of you have heard of it.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it'll definitely be the best one you've ever had today.
And join me now.
By grabbing your cup or mug or glass, a tank of chalice or stye, and a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the first simultaneous sip of the day.
As far as you know, it's going to happen now.
Go. I don't know about you, but I feel my insurrection getting stiffened.
I have stiffened my insurrection.
Well, how many of you have seen the movie Don't Look Up?
Have you all seen that? A number of people were saying, Scott, you should see that movie Don't Look Up.
And I didn't know why. And I didn't realize it was political in nature.
Now, here's the thing you need to know about it.
Give me your opinion as those who have seen it.
Do you love it or hate it? Loved it, hated it, loved it, hated it, loved it, hated it.
Alright, here's my take on it.
I can definitely see why many of you would hate it.
I can definitely see that.
Because it targets...
I would say it targets Trump supporters.
Would you say that's a fair statement?
Did you feel that it targeted Trump supporters or Republicans?
I felt like it did.
But here's my take on it.
I really enjoyed it.
In fact, it's one of my favorite movies that I've watched in a long time.
In fact, it's the only one I've enjoyed in a long time.
And here's why. Unlike you, I don't exactly view movies the same way.
Meaning that because I write for a living, if the writing is really good, and the acting and everything, I'm totally sold.
And if they make fun of me or some group I'm associated with, as long as they do it really well...
I love it. It's only when it's not done well.
For example, when some of you started calling me Vax Adams, my only objection to it was it wasn't Wasn't quite clever enough.
It was like, alright. But then somebody came up with clot atoms, and I was all over that.
Because that's actually genuinely funny.
Because a clot is way worse than the vaccination.
And it's funny because it's God.
So, if somebody does a really good job of skewering me, I love it.
Because I just appreciate the art of it.
I don't take it too personally.
But I can totally get...
Now you would be offended by it and hate every moment of it.
But I'm just going to have to say, in all fairness, it was really well executed, in my opinion.
I thought the writing was sensational.
And I thought the acting...
Was really, really good in the casting and the directing, the pace.
I mean, I liked everything about it.
So I like the artistry of it a lot.
A lot. But I get it, you know, if it's not your thing.
All right, I don't know if you noticed that Elon Musk replied to me to a tweet in which I noted, I will paraphrase my tweet, But he said, I'm not saying that people who work technical jobs are smarter than people who work in marketing.
I just think it should be noted that Elon Musk performs the job of an entire marketing department while tweeting as he shits.
Now, that actually is close to literally true, because he has said that he tweets when he's on the toilet, which I believe...
I mean, that doesn't mean every tweet...
And it is true that he doesn't have a marketing department and that he does a lot of his marketing by tweeting.
You want to get really meta?
The fact that he responded to my tweet about it is marketing.
Because he just keeps a high profile and keeps it light and keeps it funny.
And it reminded me...
I keep going back to this.
You saw the interview of Elon Musk with the Babylon Bee people.
And the thing that sticks in my mind is that before they interviewed him, he started interviewing them.
And the questions he was asking about how they got started seemed very much like somebody who was looking to start a media empire.
Now, I don't know if he's ever talked about it, but doesn't it make sense for everybody in his position To have some media asset.
And we also heard...
Well, I did. I was hearing an interview in which Elon Musk was saying at one point they actually considered, or he did, starting a candy company.
But they evaluated a bunch of samples.
And the reason he didn't is that he couldn't come up with a candy that was just way better than another candy.
You know, he made some that were good candies and maybe even a little bit better.
But unless it could be a way better candy, he didn't really want to get involved, so he let that go.
And I thought to myself, what would an Elon Musk putting together a media asset, what would that look like if it had to be substantially better than other media properties?
Do you think he could do that?
Because you've got all these media news entities, and they're all kind of the same, aren't they?
In a way. I mean, some lean left, some lean right.
But they're kind of the same product.
And then you've got the Babylon bees and the onions and the satire people, and they're really just pure humor.
Do you see where the opportunity is?
And I'm wondering if Trump is going to fill this space.
The opportunity is something that's genuinely interesting, meaning you learn something about politics and the world and it makes you a better citizen.
At the same time, it's hilarious.
Now, in a way, Jon Stewart pioneered that because we learned after he became a big phenomenon that a lot of people in a certain age group, the young, were actually getting their news from Jon Stewart.
But he would deliver it in the humorous way.
But before he would do his joke, he would actually have to tell you what the do's was before he did the joke.
And it was in John Oliver now, etc.
But you don't have anybody who's actually trying to inform you, like a major platform, that is just funny all the time.
And when you see it work, such as Gottfeld, both on The Five and on his own show, Gottfeld, you see that when real news is combined with humor, the ratings are great.
Ratings are great. You have Bill Maher, real news and humor.
So if I were an Elon Musk, and this is all speculative, there's no indication of this, but if I were thinking of doing it, and if it had to be substantially better than other things, there is really an opening for news that's just not serious ever, but still gives you the news, and maybe even shows you both sides.
Ian Bremmer tweeted on our anniversary today, January 6th.
Does it seem like it's only a year since January 6th?
I'm not the first person to note this, but I feel like it was three years ago.
It's sort of mind-blowing that it was one year ago that January 6th happened.
So Ian Bremmer was tweeting today.
He said, one year later, most Americans think another 1-6 event is likely.
I agree. Americans increasingly believe political opponents at home are their principal enemy, that we're more targeted at each other.
And he said, democracies don't persist for long under those conditions.
Now, I weighed in and said, the odds of an imaginary insurrection...
What would you say are the odds of another imaginary insurrection?
It's 100%.
Because we're in a world where both sides are just accusing each other of insurrections all day long.
So the odds of another imaginary one...
A hundred percent. In a year or whatever.
But how many real ones are going to happen?
How many real insurrections are going to happen in, say, the next year?
Probably one or two because that's the run rate.
Our run rate is one or two insurrections a year.
We just use different language to describe it.
What was the Russia collusion hoax?
The Russia collusion hoax was a government overthrow, or, you know, preemptively, depending on what timing you look at, but the whole point of it was to change our form of government through an organized, intelligence-led effort.
How's that not a coup?
Or an insurrection or something, right?
I would argue that both the fine people hoax and the drinking bleach hoax were organized.
Probably intelligence was involved in it.
And it was a coup attempt to make the public so convinced that something ridiculous had happened that they had to get rid of the president right away.
I mean, to me, I think we're in a continuous coup situation.
Now, am I willing to call the January 6th protests an insurrection?
If you want to put a small eye on it and apply it to maybe 20 deranged people who are there, maybe, but if you're applying it to the whole crowd, well, we're in dangerous territory now.
Because as I tweeted, something terrible has happened, which is the presumption of innocence, which is the bedrock of really...
Civilization. At least the civilization we want to live in.
The presumption of innocence got reversed on January 6th.
The President of the United States is right now calling them armed insurrectionists.
Have the courts decided that there were any armed insurrectionists there?
Nope. There were armed people there, and anybody who broke a law should be punished.
I don't think there's anybody listening to this who would disagree with the statement that people breaking laws need to be punished, blah, blah.
But there were a ton of people who didn't even know they were breaking a law because the fences were down before they got there.
They were just protesting.
So if you've got a president...
Who is presuming without the benefit of a trial that these people were there for insurrection, you have put the assumption of guilt on citizens from the highest office in the land.
The highest office in the land, the president, just put the assumption of guilt on a bunch of people.
Some of them were guilty.
Some, some.
But most of them, not so much.
Most of them were trying to do what they thought was preserving democracy by postponing the certification until some audits could get done.
Now, of course, when the fake news reports about it, they act like the idea is that they would take over and just change the government.
No demand like that ever happened.
The only demand was, can you give us a few days to audit some suspicious stuff?
That is protecting the Republic.
Or at least in the minds of the people there.
You know, we're not mind readers, but the asserted public often stated purpose was to delay things until there was an audit.
I don't believe anybody there, anybody, Actually, I think literally there might not have been...
It's weird to say an absolute, right?
When you talk an absolute, you're pretty much always wrong.
But I think it would be an accurate absolute to say nobody that was there to destroy democracy.
Would you buy that? Would you buy that every person who was there, everyone, 100%, no matter whether they were breaking laws or not, wouldn't you say that 100% of them thought...
Many incorrectly, that this was a good way to protect the democratic process, because they believed that the vote had been rigged.
Now, were they right?
I haven't seen evidence of it.
I haven't seen evidence.
I also haven't seen evidence that they're wrong, because, once again, January 6th reversed The presumption of innocence and guilt.
It used to be that if there was something about the government that was opaque, that we couldn't see what was going on, you just assumed it was corruption.
Am I wrong? If any part of the government was, trust us, just trust us, except for military secrets and stuff.
But if any part of the government was, well, we've got this budget, and we don't want to give you the details, but we're spending this thing.
The assumption is corruption.
And now we've gone to the courts couldn't find the thing we didn't look for in the election, so now we must presume the governments, of the states anyway, are innocent.
We're giving the states the presumption of innocence when they're not showing us an auditable election.
That's backwards. The presumption has to be that the election is corrupt if he can't audit it.
That doesn't mean it is.
Well, like the standard in the law where you assume innocence until proven guilty, that doesn't mean you're innocent.
That just means the system has to assume innocence.
It can only work that way.
But that's not the government.
The government has to prove they're not guilty.
They've got to open the books.
They've got to be transparent.
They've got to show you who voted for what.
They've got to show you where their donations came from, right?
We do all of that because of the presumption of guilt, meaning that if the government can hide anything, We do presume they will.
Am I wrong? Is there anybody who would disagree with the statement that we require a government to be transparent because we presume, every one of us, that if it's not transparent, there will be problems.
Right? 100% of us.
There's so few things you can say are 100% true.
So few. This is one of them.
Anyway... I think that should be the lesson of January 6th, that we lost the most valuable thing that our republic has ever created, which is the presumption of innocence for citizens.
And I still have many questions about the people who are being held on charges that were very skeptical that these are not just political situations.
Very skeptical. Can we prove it?
Nope. Nope.
Do you know why we can't prove it?
Because the government is not transparent about why these people are being held and what their deal is.
I presume corruption because it's not transparent.
That is a fair assumption.
Doesn't mean it's true. Doesn't mean it's true.
But it's a fair assumption, and it's the only one that makes sense.
Rasmussen did a poll and found out that Trump is, on the anniversary of January 6th, Trump is almost exactly as popular as he was at the end of his presidency.
I mean, before the trouble. 52% very or somewhat favorable.
That's Trump today.
By contrast, Black Lives Matter is 46% very or somewhat favorable.
So after everything that's happened...
Trump is more popular than Black Lives Matter.
I'm not sure that the news reflects that all the time.
Here's a question that's self-serving, but I think you're going to learn something.
Okay.
One of the biggest questions that I'm getting on social media lately is why I'm intentionally destroying my reputation.
Any of you wonder about that?
Or have any of you observed that to be true?
That I'm destroying my reputation by, I guess, having different opinions than some of you about whatever, pandemics?
Now, on locals, it doesn't seem that way because the subscription service attracts people who like to be challenged by different ideas.
So you're not curious about Well, you're going to ruin my whole premise here.
I thought you'd at least be curious why I do it intentionally.
Well, I'm going to tell you anyway, in case you had an idea, but it wasn't exactly what I was thinking.
They're like, no, we're not curious.
If you are a creative person, success becomes a prison.
For example, when I created Dilbert, I got this great creative, let's say...
It just feels good to create something that people like.
But once Dilbert was created, I couldn't really turn him into something else.
So every day for 33 years or whatever I've been doing it, I create a Dilbert that's not that different from the first one.
I try to make new jokes, of course.
But it's a trap.
If I tried to make a second comic, what would happen?
They'd say, that's not as good as Dilbert, and it wouldn't be, because it would be new.
Even Dilbert wasn't as good as Dilbert until I did it for ten years, and I figured out how to do it.
So I'm trapped that I can't change Dilbert much, and I'm trapped that I can't introduce something new, because it will just be compared to Dilbert.
So what do you do? The problem is that the Dilbert comic was largely liked by a wide group of people.
Now, one thing I did, and some people in locals know this, on the subscription service, I did an obscene comic.
You've seen some of them on Twitter.
I don't put them all there.
But I have some robots just reading the news, and they say horrible things that I couldn't say in a normal place.
So it's about the horribleness.
So the robots read news, and the subscription service in particular, because I can put things where people are not going to get upset.
That gave me freedom.
That gave me a lot of freedom.
But when I do this stuff, and especially when I talked about some pandemic stuff...
Well, let me go back.
When I first started talking about politics, I knew that whatever popularity I have would reduce by about half.
Because anybody who didn't like what I was saying about politics would like me less.
So whatever Dilber popularity I had would decrease by half.
I did that intentionally.
Because as a creator, and here's the payoff, creation and destruction are basically the same thing.
I mean, not exactly.
But you can't separate them.
In order to create, you have to destroy.
You've got to take down a house to build a new one.
You've got to destroy who you are to be a new you.
You've got to destroy what you were doing to do something new.
Almost invariably, you have to destroy something to be free.
And so part of what you see me doing is fighting for my freedom.
Creative freedom. And the creative freedom requires many of you to hate me.
And I'm going to do it anyway.
Because I'm not going to stay in a creative box at this point in my life.
It's intolerable.
I want to do where I think I can help, where I can make a difference, where I can do something maybe better than other people are doing it.
But I don't want to be locked in some little world.
And so I'm going to describe this better by talking about three things.
The three-act movie structure.
I talked about creative prisons.
And then I'm going to give you a new filter that I call the really filter.
And the really filter goes like this.
You describe something to find out if it's real, and you do it sarcastically with the word really.
I'll talk about that in a moment.
All right. So here's how the really filter works.
Let me give you some examples.
Let's say if I said to you that Bob went to the store.
Totally normal thing.
Hey, Bob went to the store.
Could you turn that into something sarcastic by adding really?
You couldn't. I'll try.
Watch. Oh, really?
Really? Bob went to the store?
Seriously. Of all the things that Bob can do, you're telling me Bob went to the store.
You see how that doesn't work?
Because you're thinking, that's just normal.
Bob went to the store. Why are you adding that attitude to it?
So that's an example of the filter detecting something that's probably true.
Probably Bob just went to the store.
But if you find something that's absolutely not true, watch what happens.
Here's another one. The president suggested that you should drink bleach, maybe to help with your COVID. Really?
Really? A person who built an empire, ran for president, destroyed the field, accomplished many things according to his supporters anyway, did all of these things,
speaks in public continually, has a college education, and really, really, you think that he stood in front of the public, you really think this, And suggested, for real, that he said to drink bleach.
Really? Really?
See that? There's somebody on YouTube who still thinks he really did that.
We're way past, did he really do it?
That's been fact-checked to death.
No, he didn't really do that.
If you believe it, that's part of the mass formation psychosis or some damn thing.
Let me do another one. The President of the United States stood in front of the world and called neo-Nazis fine people.
Really? Really.
Every single person in the world knows that that would be a bad idea if you were a politician.
But the only person, the only person in the world, really, that couldn't figure out not to do that was the one who is President.
Really? Really, that happened.
And, of course, it didn't happen.
Some of you on YouTube don't know it, because you think it really did happen.
No, it didn't happen. It was a fake edit, just like the Bleach Oaks thing is a fake edit.
Yeah, yeah, you really saw it.
No, you didn't. You all saw the fake edits, and you saw it a lot of times.
So if you find the real edits, you'll realize that both of those are real.
But here's the shortcut.
Did you need to do all the work of finding the fake edit and find out what they took out of context?
No. You could have used the really filter.
Here's another one. The events of January 6 were an insurrection.
Try the really filter on it.
The events of January 6th were an insurrection.
Go ahead. How does that work?
Really? Really?
The guy with the buffalo horns and the dude with the zip ties were going to conquer and hold the government of the United States.
Really? That was their actual plan.
They looked around and they said, hey, I think several of us are armed.
Let's go into the Capitol, maybe take some hostages.
I do think that part was probably real.
And we have a pretty good idea that this will create something that will let us hold the country and rule over it with our whatever, our God King Trump or something.
Really? You really think that there's some people thought that they could conquer the government of the United States with their flagpoles?
And they're bear spray. Really?
You really think that? See?
Now, did that work?
That worked, didn't it?
So, I'm not going to say this filter works every time.
But it works pretty well.
You want to do another one?
There was a story about me years ago.
That you'll still see if you Google me, it comes up all the time.
And it was long before we learned that all the news is fake, like we know now.
This was back when you thought some of the news was probably real.
Now, I'm going to tell you what the story is about me, and I want you to apply the really filter, okay?
You've probably even heard this about me.
I'll bet you even thought this was true.
I'll bet a lot of you thought this was true.
So here's what was said about me.
That I wrote a blog post in which I compared women to children and the mentally disabled.
So that's the story about me.
That I wrote a blog post in which I compared women to children and the mentally disabled.
Really? Really?
I'm somebody who lives in the media for a job.
I'm media trained.
I have a college education.
I do this for a living.
And you really think that I wrote that?
Really? Really?
You really think that I thought it would be a good idea to compare women to children and the mentally disabled?
And that I didn't see that maybe that would cause trouble?
Really? Do you really think I did that?
And the answer is, of course I didn't do that.
Of course not. Now, if you don't know the story, I'll tell you what I did do.
In the context of mocking men, that's the part they leave out, It was mocking men.
That was the whole context. I said that men were cowardly, essentially, I'm paraphrasing, that men were cowardly and that they don't tell women the truth.
So that was the point.
Now, is it offensive to say that men are afraid of telling women the truth?
No, that's just an observation.
It doesn't even say anything about women.
Well, I guess it does.
But it's more about men, right?
And in order to make what I thought was a hilarious point that was that point, I thought to myself, wouldn't it be funny if I got everybody riled up by putting three things in a list that don't belong?
And so I consciously formed this sentence in which I said...
I forget the exact sentence, but it was something like, there are three groups that men don't argue with.
And I said, children, mentally handicapped, and women.
Now, the reason that I put them in the list...
Is that you're supposed to say, wait, what?
Did you just put women in a list with children and the mentally disabled?
And you were supposed to say, my God, that feels wrong.
Because it was designed to feel wrong.
That's why I wrote it.
You were supposed to say, wait a minute, my brain is breaking.
Okay, I get your point.
Your point is, these are three things that men don't argue with, but for different reasons, right?
The reason you don't argue with those three groups isn't the same reason.
It's not because women are mentally disabled.
It's not because women have undeveloped brains.
It's three different reasons.
But by putting them in a list, I was aware that it would make people's heads explode and they would think momentarily, wait a minute, did he just compare them But then they would read it again, and they're like, okay, he's just being a jerk, and he thinks that's funny, which is what I was doing.
I was just being a jerk, and I thought it was funny.
Now, when you hear that in the context of 2022, do you believe me?
If you heard this in the context of when it was said, or when this happened, everybody still thought that what they read was true.
Like, people widely believed that I'd made this, like, serious comment.
Thank you, Eric. Anyway, so use the really...
And by the way, the really filter is a variant on the Scott-Alexander theory that if something sounds too incredible to be true, it's because it always is.
Not always, but like 98% of the time.
If you hear something that's just a head shaker, oh, I can't believe that, there's a good chance it didn't happen.
That's all you need to know.
Just go, really? Did that happen?
Alright, here's the other thing you need to know.
I'm going to pull this all together in a minute.
I've talked about this, how our minds are oriented towards stories.
You all know that, right? The human brain can be influenced by stories and programmed by stories and narratives, if you like.
But we're also influenced by the three-act...
Three-act movie structure.
Now, the three-act movie structure is the first act.
Something happens that changes people's lives.
You know, somebody dies or takes over or there's a war or whatever.
Act two is the fun and games area where everybody's just acting out the thing that's happened.
You know, they're struggling through something.
But generally, there's not that much problem until you get to the third act.
In which case the hero is doomed and doomed forever in an unsolvable problem.
And then at the end the problem gets solved.
So our brains are just built to imagine that's going to happen.
Let me give you an example.
I left my cartooning sort of field and started talking about Trump.
Trump was the first act when he first came on the scene.
And then I wrote a blog post called Clown Genius in which I reframed him as more clever than you think because he has this skill set in persuasion.
I think that actually made a difference in getting him elected, by the way.
Because until then, he was widely thought to be a clown.
And I explained that the clowning has utility, which he proved, by the way.
And he actually said, I'm doing this for a purpose.
And he absorbed all the energy and won, just like I predicted.
But act one was that Trump gets into the race, and then in terms of my movie, my reputation got destroyed.
Because I was the person saying he was going to get all the way through and get elected.
And so I was just destroyed.
I used to be the good Dilbert cartoonist, and then half of the world said, you are really dumb.
And then another half of the half, the Republican, said, okay, I see what you're saying, but there's no way he's going to become president.
So I made 75% of the world think I was stupid.
My reputation was in the toilet.
And the third act, for me, and for the Trump story as well, was before election when the news came out, or the recording of him saying that he sometimes grabbed women by the you-know-what.
So here was the setup.
First act, Trump changes things.
I become part of that by writing about him.
Second act is all this fun and games.
I write about what he's doing, his linguistic kill shots.
It's fun and games.
It's the campaign. And then just before the election, third act.
It's over.
Nobody gets elected with that big of a thing hanging over them right before the election.
And then...
He got elected anyway.
He got elected anyway.
And that was the surprise result, the end of the movie.
Now, is this the first time I've been involved in a three-act play?
Well, no. No.
Not. For example, back in the 90s, I predicted that evolution would be debunked in my lifetime.
By scientific means, not by religious means.
Do you know what happened in the 90s when I predicted that evolution would be debunked?
I destroyed my reputation.
Because most of my customer base were technical or at least educated people who would say, no, Scott, if you're selling me this...
This intelligent design, which I wasn't.
At the time, I just said, I don't know what the answer will be.
I don't think it will be a God answer, but I think the evolution will be debunked.
I got savaged by that.
And anywhere I went to talk about anything, for about 20 years, everywhere I went, somebody said, don't listen to him, he's the guy who thinks evolution isn't real.
And then the simulation theory came out, as I predicted.
A complete different way of looking at reality, which is specifically what I predicted.
I predicted that evolution would be replaced because we would see reality itself differently, and that would just be a subset of reality.
And now the simulation theory, Which has lots of backing from smart people.
Elon Musk again. Actually rewrites the entire idea of what evolution would even mean if we're a simulation.
And so, we've come full circle.
Writing my book and calling evolution a mistake.
20 years of eating shit for it.
Followed by... Can you believe it?
There is a competing theory called the simulation that's probably a trillion to one more likely than evolution.
We don't know, but it's probably a trillion to one more likely, just because there will be lots of simulations, and we know that.
So the odds that they yearn the original one are pretty low.
All right, so that was another one.
That was sort of a three-act play.
And we're right in the middle of another one in which I made some statements about rogue doctors usually being wrong and made a lot of other statements about the pandemic and the virus and vaccinations caused the few people who still had any respect for me to lose it.
Mostly they imagined I had opinions that I didn't have.
But we'll get to that. But the net of it was that something happened, the pandemic.
That was the thing that happened.
That's the first act. The second act was all of us dealing with it and making predictions, etc.
And then the third act is whatever is the conclusion in which we figure out who was right about everything and who was wrong.
My third act, my impossible feat, Is to recover from not only everybody on the left hating me, because I talk about things on the right, but also a huge portion of the right hating me because they believe I disagree with them on vaccinations and stuff, and I probably don't.
So how do you get out of that?
This, ladies and gentlemen, is where we're at.
We're at the third act. Can I do it?
Is there any way that I can defend myself from what people have said?
Is Scott losing it?
That, in fact, my flailing at my critics is proving how crazy I am, how possibly lost in a mass formation psychosis.
And that there is no way, having predicted so many things wrong and gotten so many things wrong in the pandemic, and everybody knows it, how wrong I've been about really everything in the pandemic, there is no way to recover from this third act, is there? Well, here's a little update.
I put together my list of my predictions that I could remember, which of course includes none of them that I got wrong, because the way memory works is you remember your good ones and you forget the bad ones.
So I put it on the locals platform, the subscription platform, and I asked the people who follow me the closest to fact check it and to add onto it in the comments Anything I got wrong that I just didn't have on the list.
So fairly soon, I'm going to have a list of my predictions along with what the people who follow me have added to it or corrected it.
And then I'm going to make the case that I had the best predictions in the pandemic.
And then I'm going to find somebody to publish it.
And then you're going to have to argue whether I had the best Predictions of the whole pandemic, of the entire world, or maybe just top ten.
And when you're done, I will have created a record of predicting better than anybody predicted.
And that is the end of the movie.
And we'll need a new movie after this.
Because there's always a new movie.
But do I destroy my reputation intentionally?
Yes. Do you think that I act exactly like this in person?
No. How often have you seen me go into cursing tirades?
I mean, I don't do that much in person, but here it comes easily.
And I wouldn't say that I'm putting on an act, per se.
Because my argument is that everybody modifies their communication for the situation.
You don't talk to a two-year-old the way you talk to an adult, the way you talk to your boss, the way you talk to anybody else.
And so when I talk to you here, this is completely genuine in the sense that this is my genuine communication style for this situation.
But of course, if I'm negotiating with a terrorist, I'm going to modify my style that everybody does in every situation.
All right. I don't know if any of this was interesting, because the problem is it's too self-referential.
But I would like to get back to January 6th and tell you that you are in the middle of a massive brainwashing operation.
I don't know the degree to which it is organized, but it looks organized.
It looks as if the whole January 6th thing is just to keep Trump out of office and to keep Trump supporters and Republicans in general demonized by keeping that story in your head.
Because it creates a situation where Democrats can do anything to Republicans because, damn it, those Republicans deserve it.
Look at them and their insurrections.
On election tampering, I don't have any updates on anything about that.
Alright. Somebody says January 6th was less dangerous than the Travis Scott concert.
Literally true.
Alright. What act is Trump currently in?
Good question. If I had to put money on it, I would say his best play would be to start a media empire and to use his clout there, because he could practically run the country from a media empire.
Right? He doesn't have to do all the work and go to the meetings.
He can just do his thing and change public opinion, and then things start going his way.
Prevent election tampering in 2022 can't be done.
Can't be done. There's no energy on the left or the right to make our elections transparent.
And when elections are not transparent, meaning that you can't fully audit them, including the electronic parts, if it's not fully transparent, the assumption is corruption.
Am I wrong? Is there anybody who disagrees with that, by the way?
That the assumption should be corruption, because not only is it not auditable, there's no energy to fix it.
It's the biggest problem in the country.
If the biggest problem in the country is not being fixed, or even addressed, assume corruption.
When the FDA was tardy approving rapid tests, and we were not quite sure why, I mean, we've heard stories, but they don't quite sell.
Assume corruption.
Because you can't tell what happened, and they won't tell us exactly.
So, assume corruption, yeah.
Twitter is run by a MAGA hater, is that what you're saying?
Getter is. Bitcoin crashed.
Because Kazakhstan had an internet shutdown?
What? Somebody's saying that Marjorie Taylor Greene was on Timcast last night, and this user says, I never saw her not ugly filtered by fake news before.
So you're saying that in person she's a more attractive person than...
I love when the Fox News does this really well, but CNN does it too.
When they're doing a negative story about somebody they don't like, and the photo that they choose is always just the most insulting photo of a person.
Whenever people would write stories about me that were negative, they would go to this piece of some kind of public photograph.
Somehow they would get the rights.
And they would always pick the same one.
It was one where I was literally acting like I was talking while they took the picture.
I was literally going, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, not even talking.
And one of the pictures just makes me look like a real jerk.
I'm like, like this.
And... Whenever there's a negative, like a hit piece on me, they always go right to it, because it's the one that makes me look the most ridiculous.
It's actually so funny that it makes me laugh when I see it.
When can we get more micro-lessons?
You know, my biggest problem is that I've got some noisy home construction, so I can't do it in the hours that I want to do it.
But I've got a couple lined up.
Yeah, this was one today.
And we will talk to you tomorrow.
And I think it's fair to say this is the best one ever in a very small way.
The only one I think is useful is noting that the presumption of innocence has been reversed.
And that's a really big deal.
And I don't see anybody talking about it.
Export Selection