Episode 1770 Scott Adams: Let's Talk About The January 6 Kangaroo Court. You Won't Want To Miss This
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Self-Cannibalism of America
An immigration solution that would work
J6 unethical, documentary style "hearing
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to not only the highlight of civilization, but the best example of it.
Today's show will feature talk about the kangaroo court.
I know that's why you're here.
Yeah, it is. And before we do that, would you like to Take your attitude up a level.
Would you like your dopamine to go up a notch while your serotonin and oxytocin slowly simmer, waiting for just the right moment to jump in in just the right amount?
Yes, you would. And you'll find that every day you come here and hear that message, it's going to work a little bit better.
Savor it. Now, if you want to take it up a notch, all you need is a cover mug or a glass of tank or chalice or stye and a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind, filling with your favorite beverage.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called a simultaneous sip.
It's going to happen now.
Go. I saw a suggestion in the comments that should be called the simultaneous swallow, but I'm going to save that for the evening program,
if you know what I mean. Well, ladies and gentlemen, I have this weird optimistic feeling I wanted to share with you, because it seems like everything's falling apart, doesn't it?
The economy is melting, and inflation's high, and gas is too expensive, and that Omicron never seems to go away, and blah, blah, nuclear war.
Shortage of everything. Where's my water?
Forest fire's getting ready to spark up any moment now.
But, did you know that if we were a company instead of a country, and you could apply this to whatever country you're in, Companies need to cannibalize themselves.
So companies need to put themselves on a business every few years in order to renew, because if they don't put themselves on a business, someone else will by making a better product.
So Apple, for example, needs to continually make a better product such that the last product they made looks like crap.
So they need to destroy themselves every few years.
Apple does. They just got rid of the iPod, right?
And countries may have to do the same thing.
They may have to do the same thing.
You've probably noticed that Germany and Japan did well with help, but recovering from World War II. So burning everything down every now and then is part of the necessary moving forward process.
The part that's alarming is that the safest path for humanity looks like the least safe path.
Because we're naturally biased toward keeping things the same, don't rock the boat.
And for anything to change drastically, you've got to rock the boat.
So while it is really always the safest thing to do to cannibalize yourself, to destroy what you have to try to build it back to a better way, it's messy.
And while you're in it, it feels like everything's going wrong.
But I have this feeling that none of these things are going to kill us.
And that, you know, we're seeing the small micro nuclear projects going forward.
We're seeing fusion coming online.
We're seeing big, you know, CO2 scrubbers.
We're seeing all kinds of innovation and everything from, you know, farming to space to who knows where we're going to find our, you know, next rare earth minerals.
Some people say, well, just mine them from the ocean.
So, almost all the things that look like these horrible problems are almost guaranteed to create a renewed product or a set of products or new systems around those things that weren't working well before.
There's just a whole bunch of stuff that's going to get better.
And today, we're just going to have fun talking about the silliness and thinking about all the things that are going to get better.
Even while...
It feels like it's not.
So that's the toughest situation in which to be optimistic when everything's on fire.
But everything that burns down gets built back better, to use a Bidenism.
Well, here's a story.
True story.
Somewhere in Pennsylvania on Thursday, two people were rescued after falling into a tank full of chocolate...
At the Mars M&M factory in Pennsylvania.
So two people fell into a big tank of chocolate, which was actually kind of dangerous.
It's not clear how the two people got in there, but there are some preliminary reports about the two people who got into the M&M chocolate.
Preliminary reports are that they were both nuts.
Talk among yourselves. It's fine.
Yeah. Yeah.
I know. Some of you thought it was the best thing you heard today.
Some of you are saying, oh, God, why am I listening to this?
I know. It's a very individual thing.
But, yeah. And the moral of the story is keep your nuts out of the chocolate.
Keep your nuts out of the chocolate.
That's the moral of the story.
Well, I have come up with a solution for solving the immigration crisis at the border.
Specifically, the large numbers of them.
I'm pro-immigrant.
I just think we should be able to control how it's done.
And right now the Democrats seem to be less interested in controlling it, and so it's hard to make a deal.
But I came up with a strategy That you will laugh at.
I'm going to make you two guarantees.
Two guarantees. Number one, you'll laugh because you'll think it's a joke.
And then after you laugh, you'll realize that the reason you're laughing is because it would work.
So these are my promises.
I'm going to deliver this right now.
You're going to laugh, and when I'm done, you're going to say, damn it, that would actually, in the real world, that would actually work.
Completely work. It goes like this.
Give all of the immigrants in the caravans free red hats.
Now, originally I thought they should say MAGA on them, but that's too far.
Just put an American flag on them.
American flag and a red hat.
And they all have to have them before they come across the border.
Do you know why?
Number one, no one says no to a free hat.
No one says no to a free hat.
Because it's really hot.
And a lot of them don't have hats.
I was looking at the migrant care events.
Number two, what do Republicans think when they see the migrants streaming across the border and they're thinking, my God, look at all these future Democrat voters.
They think they're losing their power.
Because maybe they are.
I don't know. I don't think necessarily.
But maybe they are. I can see why they'd worry about it.
But imagine if every time you saw a new video of a caravan streaming across the border, they were all wearing hats that reminded you of Republicans.
This is the part where I just turned you.
You just realized, wait a minute, they would take the free hats and it would just have an American flag on it.
Wouldn't you like to see people streaming across the border Wearing American flags.
First of all, wouldn't you feel differently?
Wouldn't you feel differently?
I know you're going to say, no, I wouldn't.
I would use my rational brain.
Yeah, I know it's genius.
It is genius. I'm not done yet.
This is going to get better, by the way.
I'm just starting. It actually does get better.
So... The first thing you do is you make the media argue whether a red hat with an American flag on it only means Republican.
Because it doesn't.
But the left has made it mean that to themselves.
So if it means that to themselves, well, that's sort of on them.
And it wouldn't cost them any money.
Here we assume that there's some Republican fund that funds these hats.
Number two. Do you think it would influence the immigrants to be more pro-American just because they got a free hat and it had a little flag on it?
Yes. Yes, absolutely.
Yes, who would influence them?
Not only would they be influenced by the hat that they were wearing, but they would see their friends with the same hats.
They would absolutely find value in the hat.
They would feel an immediate sense of Reciprocity.
If America gives you a hat, like it's a gift, you walk in the door illegally and they give you a gift.
What are you going to think of Republicans?
Because you would come to think it was Republicans too.
So that's part of the genius of this.
What would you do if the very first thing that happened is you broke the laws in America, but they gave you a gift?
Well, you wouldn't know what to do.
But the little reciprocity gene just kicks in.
And you say, you know, I wasn't here.
I mean, I didn't even put a foot across the border.
And whoever hands out these red hats with flags on them, I like them because they took care of me because it was really hot.
And I'll tell you what I needed.
I needed more than anything.
I needed a hat.
If you look at how poor they appear to be, it looks like they can't afford hats, a lot of them.
Because I don't know why you wouldn't wear one in the summer.
So, now you've got the hats.
You ready for phase two?
Come up with a Republican app, this sort of branded Republican, maybe even with the red colors and the American flag still.
So make it look like it's an American thing, but sort of obviously Republican.
And you make it available to the immigrants.
And let's say the app helped them find jobs, At Republican-owned farms and businesses.
Because it's not as if we don't need the labor.
We need the labor. But suppose Republicans said, look, if we can't stop the immigration, at least can we get you in this app?
We'll get your name.
Maybe we'll take a picture of you.
So at least we'll be able to track you a little bit.
And if you wear our hat...
And you use our app, we'll make sure you get paid.
How about that? How about if you use the app, we'll make sure that your employer has to use the app to pay you.
And then you're definitely going to get paid.
Because you'll put your hours into the app and it'll be able to track if you showed up for time, showed up to work.
So you can imagine the set of features that the app would have that would simply be useful.
It wouldn't matter if you were a legal or an illegal alien, let's say immigrant, it would just be useful.
And then suddenly, what would the Democrats say about a situation in which the Republicans are still advocating for total border security?
So you don't have to change that.
So Republicans can still want their wall.
And I advocate for total control of a border, but I don't advocate for turning off immigration.
We should just do it rationally.
So what if the Democrats said to themselves, wait a minute, I just saw that poll that said a lot of, I don't know if it's first or second generation immigrants from Mexico and Latin America, that a lot of them are more Republican?
So imagine if you saw the Republicans appear to be courting their vote before they even stepped over the border.
Imagine if the Republicans Played to win.
And just said, look, we're going to win one of two ways.
We're either going to close the border, maybe that's first choice, but if you're not going to close it, we're going to turn them into Republicans.
You only have two choices.
It's either a controlled border or lots more Republicans.
Pick one. You don't think the Republicans could turn them into Republican voters if they really put the effort into it?
Absolutely they could. But here's the thing.
It wouldn't have to work.
It would only have to look like it might.
It would just have to look like it might.
And if the Republicans talked about it and said, look, it's not our first choice, But we're sure as hell not going to let them come to this country and not have American values.
So let's call those separate questions.
Number one, do you come?
Who gets to come and when?
Number two, if you're going to be here, do we manage that situation well or do we just let it handle itself?
So the idea is amazingly provocative but completely practical.
Every part of what I just described is doable and legal, and I don't think there's anything that would stop you from doing any of it.
It's just money, and it would be money well spent if you were of that political persuasion.
All right. Rasmussen reports that that gap, when they do the generic Republican against the generic Democrat for the midterms, the lead is up to nine points for the generic Republican.
So that's up from eight.
So I think it's the highest gap, correct me if I'm wrong, at least within Rasmus and at least lately.
I think it's one of the biggest gaps we've seen in enthusiasm or likely outcome.
But remember, there are no generic Republicans and there are no generic Democrats.
So it doesn't really mean exactly...
That all the Republicans win.
But we'll see. Amazingly, Twitter has decided to give Elon Musk all the data he wants.
It's been described by some as a firehose of data.
Now, it could be a trick.
It could be a trick. They could be giving him so much data That it can't be analyzed because it's just not in the form that anybody can use it.
That it can't be analyzed before the deal needs to close or if there's some kind of deadline involved.
I don't know if there is. But it could be a trick.
They could be just burying him in data, which would be as good as giving him nothing.
So let's wait for the next level of information about what this really, really means.
Because the next thing you should hear is Elon Musk either saying this data is useful and it's exactly what I wanted, Or he'll say, what are you trying to pull?
This data is useless and it doesn't tell me what I need to know or there's something missing or something like that.
Which way do you think it's going to go?
Do you think Elon Musk is going to take that data and say exactly what I asked for?
Thank you. And now I have my answers.
Have you ever worked for a big company?
Everybody who's ever worked for a big company knows this is a trick.
Of course it's a trick.
Now, we don't know how much of a trick, but it's a trick.
There's no such thing as a big corporation that just says, you know what?
Hey, let's just completely change our stance from it's impossible to give you for ten different reasons.
Completely change that, and we'll just give you all the data.
That doesn't happen in the real world.
And it didn't happen here.
But the news might report it that way.
There's some kind of trick.
It's either too much data, the wrong data, or it's 99% of the data, but without the 1% that really would be the dangerous part.
It could be that the data's already been massaged.
It could be anything.
It could be that they're selectively picking time periods for when they looked at the data.
Perhaps it's the data only since after they scrubbed out the bots.
You could think of 50 different ways a corporation could Manage the situation, if you know what I mean.
Manage the situation.
Massage the situation.
And I say this as somebody who worked for big corporations, massaging data.
This was literally my job, you know, to make stuff persuasive.
And that meant a little bit of interpretation and assumption going on there.
All right, well, keep an eye on that space.
Let's talk about January 6th and the hearings.
How many of you watched it?
It was tough to watch all of it.
I tried to catch as much of it and plus the arguments as I could.
So the first thing you care about is that Fox News just had Tucker Carlson's show instead.
And Tucker went at it hard.
He said that he wouldn't carry the propaganda and he wouldn't help them because they're lying.
So I like the fact that he just says it directly.
It's propaganda. I'm not going to help them.
They're lying. Pretty good.
Now, here are some of the lies.
CBS apparently said the protesters caused the death of five police officers because of the January 6th protests.
The reality is there were five police officers who died after the event of suicide.
But there's no definitive connection that January 6th caused that, because there's a high rate of suicide among that population.
So that was just one of the examples of the...
I would call that a lie.
I mean, it's important.
I think it's definitely worth noting, but you have to put it in context, otherwise it's a lie.
Here's the thing that I wasn't quite sure of.
I thought this was going to be the case a little bit, then I thought, no, that's impossible.
They're actually having the hearings and just showing one side of the argument?
I thought I was hallucinating.
I thought, wait, why would you even call this a hearing?
What does a hearing mean?
And since when in the United States...
Does anybody think a fair system is one side telling their story?
Is there even one person anywhere?
Even one person?
This is an actual challenge.
Find me one citizen of the United States, legal or illegal, who thinks that a good system involves hearing one side tell their story.
Literally nobody.
There's not one person in the whole world Who thinks that that makes any sense?
And yet they're doing it right in front of us.
Now what I love about their strategy from a persuasion perspective, if I'm going to give them a persuasion grade, it's going to be good.
So don't let that annoy you.
Because what they're doing is completely unethical, un-American, unscrupulous.
As horrible as the violence at January 6th.
Yeah, I just said it. I just said it.
What the Democrats are doing right now to the country is on a par with the thing they're talking about.
The violence, which did look pretty bad.
The videos are quite persuasive that there was a super, super dangerous situation with real injuries.
And you do really feel it.
So persuasion-wise, they did a great job, because they make you feel it.
They put you right in the scene.
And you hear the anguished calls from the law enforcement people, you know, that they're basically outnumbered and getting pushed around and everything.
And the genius of which they, of course, selectively, selectively, You know, put the audio over the video.
Because don't you think there were some law enforcement people who weren't talking like they were about to be killed at any moment?
There had to also be video or audio of law enforcement saying, we will need reinforcements over at the East Gate.
Looks like we're holding them, but better get over here pretty quickly.
Was there anybody who talked like that?
Or did they all talk like, they're coming through the gate, there's so many of them, we don't know what to do.
And I'm not mocking them, by the way.
I want to make clear that that was not intended to be mocking the audio of the people who were literally risking their life to protect the capital and the government.
So they were heroes.
No ambiguity about that.
The defenders were heroes.
But the audio that were chosen was chosen to make you feel a certain way, to make you feel afraid, to put you in the seat.
So, persuasion-wise, it was really good.
Now, if you were just going to dip into this, like most consumers would, you know, people like me, some of you, are going to sort of dig in and see what's going on, because we like it, just a hobby.
But the casual public is going to turn this on, and they will be under the mistaken impression that it's some kind of a balanced discussion, or you see both sides, or somebody gets to interview people, and then there's counter-interviews.
You would just assume that the other side was being shown, wouldn't you?
It was not. Do you know why this is in the form of a documentary?
Because really, they put together like a show.
It's like a documentary. Because a documentary is persuasive because it doesn't try to necessarily, depends on the documentary, but it doesn't necessarily try to show both sides.
And I don't think there's any effort.
I mean, nobody's even trying to do it.
So why do you have to do a documentary as your form of presentation?
You use the documentary form when the facts don't make the case.
Where would this be...
If the facts made the case, wouldn't there be some kind of legal court case involved?
All right, here's my first aha moment.
What do the Democrats say about claims of election irregularity?
They say, no court has found...
No court has found anybody guilty of that.
So why do the Democrats need to use a documentary hearing that shows only one side?
Why do they need to do that?
Because there's no court that found whatever it is that they're alleging to be illegal, except for the specific cases, of which there are quite a number of them, of specific people who did illegal things, which I don't minimize.
So just later, when somebody takes this out in context, let me put in here my statement that I think everybody should say.
That I don't minimize the violence.
That was a pretty bad-looking situation, I've got to say.
The violent parts. But also, that was a small percentage of the people who were there.
I think the people who are behind the people who are doing the violence were just sort of going along for the ride.
Maybe unwisely, but it's a whole different level of badness.
Amazingly, Democrats have responded to this thing that they're calling an insurrection by creating a propaganda vehicle to demonize part of the country, Without giving that part of the country due process and the right of rebuttal.
What would be, hypothetically, and I'm not recommending this, I want to be really clear, I'm not recommending this, but just as a mental experiment, what would be a process that the public would use to fix the problem of its government Going into bold propaganda mode and accusing people without letting them defend themselves.
What would be voting?
Voting would be one. The other would be an insurrection.
So the Democrats have decided to respond to what they call an insurrection, but wasn't.
And we know that because...
People who plan insurrections, they generally have their weapons out.
That's like, you know, Insurrection 101.
But that wasn't the case with these protesters.
So whatever it was they were planning to do, it wasn't taking and holding the country, that's for sure.
So if you were to blame half the country for causing an insurrection, and it's a fake accusation, and you make the accusation in public, and you damn these people, and you compare them to white supremacists, and you try to get them...
Get the country so angry at them that one of them might get a loaded weapon and drive across the country and try to kill a Supreme Court justice.
If you were so despicable that you would do any of these things, I can think of one solution, an insurrection.
I don't recommend it.
But you have to be conscious of the fact that they're creating the situation that invites an insurrection, which is demonizing one part of the public unfairly and not letting that side of the public present their side of the case.
That is the most un-American thing you could do.
And that is the reason that revolutions are fought.
Revolutions happen because the government is abusing you and not letting you have your say.
This is the government abusing part of the public right in front of us and not letting them have their say.
This is worthy of a fucking insurrection.
I don't recommend it.
It wouldn't be useful.
But it's worthy.
It's worthy of it.
From an ethical, moral standpoint, These are people who should be thrown out of government and the whole system should be torn down and it should be replaced.
Wouldn't be a good idea.
Don't do it. Right?
Because it's just not the kind of destruction we need at the moment.
But morally, ethically, yeah, they've made the case for insurrection.
They have made the case for insurrection.
And that's what they accomplished so far.
Have we ever had a less competent government?
Literally no. Literally no.
We've never had a less competent government.
They've actually created a public case for insurrection by removing the most basic protection that every fucking American has, which is the right to face your accuser and address the allegations.
The most basic fucking right.
Most basic.
You know, after free speech, maybe.
Which is also under assault.
Yeah, Joel Pollack was pointing this out in the tweet, that they're basically responding in an un-American way, and they're doing it right in front of us, which is the weird thing.
How can you be so un-American, like right in front of America?
It's one thing if, like, there's one idiot who says something, and you say, ah, that sounded a little un-American.
I mean, that's just people talking.
But this is an organized, un-American effort to be as un-American as you could possibly be.
All right. Here's what Brian Stelter said about Tucker Carlson.
And I swear, if I didn't tell you that this is real, you would think this was a joke.
This is really CNN's Brian Stelter who really wrote this about Tucker Carlson.
And you know, Tucker not covering the January 6th stuff.
So Stelter says, Carlson sounded like an amateur magician who tries to distract kids when a performance falls apart.
Look over here, not over there, he said.
Gas is over five bucks.
Inflation is higher than it's been in a lifetime of most Americans.
Violent crime is making cities impossible to live in.
And more than 100,000 Americans OD'd on drugs last year.
Why isn't there a prime time hearing about any of that?
Wait. What?
Did Brian Stelter literally just say that Tucker was trying to distract the country from a bullshit propaganda documentary that only shows one side and is intended to mislead us?
It's designed to mislead us.
By design, right in front of us.
They're not even hiding the fact that, by design, it's meant to deceive you.
Because everybody knows that if you only show one side of the argument, it's meant to deceive.
Children know that.
Everybody knows that.
So Stelter says that instead of looking at the thing that is clearly meant to deceive you, for pure political reasons, that Tucker Carlson, that bastard, That bastard is trying to make you look at your current biggest problems.
That is despicable.
Tucker Carlson is trying to get you to focus on your own personal biggest problems and the country's biggest problems, which are yours as well, inflation, etc.
And he's distracting you from the thing that has no purpose whatsoever except to be bad for Tucker Carlson's audience.
This doesn't even sound serious, does it?
Have I become so hypnotized myself that this does make sense to other people, and it's just that when I see it, my brain can't make sense of it?
Or does it really not make sense to anybody that the ridiculous thing, that we're being distracted by our actual problems instead of looking at the ridiculous thing?
It's pretty bold. It's bold.
You know what we should do with Brian Stelter?
If there's anybody who should fall into a giant tank of chocolate, well, there is one nut.
No, that sounds violent.
Do not do anything bad to Brian Stelter.
Who I kind of like, by the way.
One of the strange things about Brian Stelter...
As much as he is mockable in many ways, he's also really likable.
He looks like if you knew him personally, he'd be fun to be with.
Anyway, so if you have not watched the January 6th hearings, I want to explain the logic, because they took a lot of variables and they put them together.
So I'm going to run through the argument, and let's see if you can follow it.
I'm going to summarize it into its simplest form, but see if you can follow along.
Because there's going to be a bunch of different pieces that come together, like, dare I say, a masterpiece.
I mean, they'll start just by parts, but eventually it'll become like a delicious gourmet soup.
But you have to wait for the end.
Alright, here's what the Democrats are telling us.
Number one, there were some white supremacists allegedly who were members of the Proud Boys.
And the Proud Boys being a group whose leader is a person of color.
So that's assumption number one.
There are white supremacists in this organization that's led by a person of color.
Enrico. Enrique?
Somebody? The Proud Boys have had at least one conversation with a different group called the Oath Keepers.
We don't know what they talked about, but they've talked.
They've met each other.
They've talked. Trump encouraged legal protests against certifying the vote before there was an audit, because he wanted to make sure the vote was accurate.
So Trump encouraged legal protests, and we see the evidence of it in his words, etc., Then number four, members of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers were allegedly the violent ones at the protests, so they showed video showing those two groups, and they seemed to be sort of the vanguard of the fights with the law enforcement.
And they're the ones who fought and injured law enforcement.
Number five, Trump once said of the Proud Boys, when asked about them, that they should stand down and stand by.
Was that the exact quote?
Stand down and stand by.
And then the fake news told you that what that means is they should be ready for violence on his behalf.
That stand down and stand by should be interpreted not as don't do anything, but rather as get ready to do something.
Because if you didn't know it, and we learned this during Trump's term, and I didn't know this.
I thought when he talked he was saying actual words meant the same as normal words.
But apparently Trump has this thing that they call like a Mafia Don talk, where if somebody says, let's say if a normal person say, hey, if I'm away for the weekend, could you take care of the cat?
That would be how a normal person talks.
And then you say, oh, take care of the cat.
That would be feed the cat, change the litter box, make sure it doesn't get out.
Got it. Take care of the cat.
But if Trump were to say take care of the cat, then that's a mafia leader talk.
And the way you should interpret that is, when I'm gone, take care of the cat.
Which would be interpreted as kill the cat.
So, if you didn't know that Trump does opposite talk, where when he says, you know, be peaceful and love, that what he really means is get ready for, you know, evil and killing and fighting.
Because it's opposite talk.
Now... How do we know this?
I don't want to get into the whole background of how originally we found that Trump is a backwards talker, like a mafia don.
But you can do your own research.
It has to do with the Rosetta Stone.
If you take it back to the Rosetta Stone, blada, blada, blada, blada, Trump's a backwards talker.
Stand down and stand by means grab your weapons and run into the fight.
So that's the argument.
And let's see, there's some more stuff here.
Trump's advisers did not think the election was rigged.
So Ivanka, Bill Barr, they did not think the election was rigged.
And therefore, that should tell you something about what Trump thinks.
Because what people who are not Trump thinks...
It gives you an insight into what Trump thinks.
You see the connection there, right?
People who are different people, if they have thoughts in their head, but you don't know anything about what's in Trump's head, you could look at the thoughts that are in the other people's heads, who are completely different personalities with different incentives, And whatever they're thinking, logically, because of science, is what Trump is also thinking.
So that's part of the argument.
Trump did not try to stop the violent protests.
Now, I haven't heard him say why or what the counter-argument is, but even I would say that that sounds like a reasonable criticism.
Because I think there was even evidence that Don Jr.
and others had asked him to at least disavow the protest.
So I don't know what he did or didn't, but their argument is that he didn't try to stop it for hours.
All right, so you put it all together, and all of this collectively, collectively, not any one thing, but collectively, when you see it all together...
These individual ingredients, they create this delicious gourmet soup, which says the following, that Trump instigated an organized insurrection against the government.
Well, there's no evidence that supports that claim, but you have to look at it in its totality.
So while there's not any piece of evidence to suggest that he did that, none, If you put all the stuff that is not any evidence that it happened together, and you look at it as a whole, then suddenly you can see it.
So it's the same process of making soup.
If you had no ingredients for your soup, this is like a Democrat soup.
So a Democrat soup would be like, let's say it calls for some carrots, but you don't have any carrots.
That doesn't matter.
And it also calls for some You know, some meat and some broth, but you don't have any meat and you don't have any broth.
Doesn't matter. It's a Democrat soup.
And then it calls for, like, some potatoes, but you don't have any potatoes either.
And when you're done, you didn't actually have any of the ingredients, but that doesn't matter.
Because it's not about any of the ingredients existing.
It's about how delicious the soup is when you put together all the ingredients you don't have.
And that is what I call the Hannity argument.
Just to make your brain spin a little bit.
I call this the Hannity argument because I've never seen anybody do it better.
And the technique goes like this.
It's a persuasion technique.
You list several things that are true, and then one thing that is not supported by the facts...
And the brain takes them all in as if, well, if the other things he said are true, probably that other thing that I don't quite understand is true as well.
So you take in the whole thing because it's couched in other stuff that's true.
I'll give you an example.
Now this is not a real example, but it's an example of a technique.
If I were to try to use this technique, I might say, potatoes are food.
All humans eventually die.
Crops require water. Some farmers have drought problems.
Trump eats potatoes and drinks water.
Therefore, Trump wants you to die.
Now, Hannity has never said that, right?
So it's not a real example.
But it's an example of the five true things and then toss one thing in there and change the subject.
All right, I'm going to read it again.
Because once you recognize the technique, you'll see it all the time.
You know, Hannity's not like the one person who does it, right?
It's an opinion person thing.
So anybody else who does opinion work, you're going to see this.
All right, I'll say it again. And it's the speed you say it that makes it work.
All right. We all know potatoes are food.
All humans eventually die.
Crops, they require water.
Some farmers have drought problems.
Trump eats potatoes. He drinks water.
Therefore, Trump wants you to die.
Next story. Here's how Axios described this argument technique.
So I'm describing it as Hannity Persuasion.
Axios is trying to make a name.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
I think this is true.
Axios was trying to make a name as a news organization that was not obviously left or right biased.
Is that true? And have they succeeded in that?
Because I feel like they have, actually.
Yeah, Axios is on my list of sources to try.
Now, I feel as though they've had stories that maybe the right didn't like and probably have stories that the left didn't like.
But I feel like they're making an honest attempt to not be biased.
Some of you are agreeing.
And I would say that in my casual...
It looks like they succeed, but I can't tell.
It looks like it. But here's how Axios talks about the Democrats' argument.
They called it indirect connective tissue to establish Trump's culpability in this.
Indirect connective tissue.
Would you like to hear an example of an argument that uses indirect connective tissue?
Alright, here it goes. Here's an argument with indirect connective tissue.
Potatoes are food. All humans eventually die.
Crops require water. Some farmers have drought problems.
Trump eats potatoes and drinks water.
Therefore, Trump wants you to die.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is indirect connective tissue.
And scene. Liz Cheney says former President Trump had a, quote, sophisticated seven-point plan to overturn the 2020 presidential election over the course of several months.
I'm thinking to myself, have you ever met, have you ever heard of President Trump?
Let me tell you one thing he didn't have.
There are many things he has, many things I don't know about, many things he might have, private thoughts I don't know about.
He might have investments I don't know about.
There might be all kinds of things I don't know about Trump.
Lots and lots of things I don't know about him, probably.
I wouldn't use him. But here's one thing I do know about him.
And I feel confident in saying this.
He has never had a sophisticated seven-point plan.
I just feel good about that.
I feel good in saying, with some confidence, he's never had a sophisticated seven-point plan.
Do you know why? Let me tell you why.
Because he's not a fucking idiot.
Do you know who has sophisticated seven-point plans?
People who don't know how to do anything.
That's who. There's no such thing as a sophisticated seven-point plan that anybody ever pulled off.
I don't even think Elon Musk had a sophisticated seven-point plan to get to fucking Mars.
It was probably more like a three-point plan.
Hire the best engineers, figure out the cheapest way to do it.
I don't think he had a sophisticated seven-point plan at all.
I think maybe three.
Maximum. And that's Elon Musk getting to Mars.
Three points.
Maximum. So anybody who thinks that Trump had a sophisticated seven-point plan doesn't know, number one, anything about Trump, because the secret to his success was simplification.
Simplification is almost the complete description of why he works.
Trump simply takes all the complexity out of it.
And all you're left with, build a wall.
Oh. Reduce regulations.
Oh. Yeah.
Okay. Make lots of energy.
Yeah, that makes sense.
Strong military. Okay.
Right? Am I wrong?
You could describe almost every Trump policy with less than a sentence.
You could describe every Trump policy with a sentence fragment.
You don't even need the full sentence.
Am I right? So the fact that they're trying to sell to the American public that Trump, of all people, of all people, the person who has had the most success in the world was simplification.
And he had a sophisticated seven-point plan and no advisors who apparently thought it was a good idea.
Yeah. Now, when people talk about the four-dimensional chess, he does know how to persuade, but that's right in front of you, right?
There's nothing... There's nothing, like, sophisticated about it.
The technique is very simple.
Make you think past the sale.
Make you optimistic.
Bring energy. You know, those are really right in front of you.
And anybody can do them, right?
He just happens to do them really well.
All right. And also, Liz Cheney's using words like that Trump lit the flame.
So the violence of January 6th is because Trump lit the flame.
Now, what legal standard is that?
Can you remind me of the legal standard for lighting the flame?
I suppose if you yelled fire in a crowded theater, that would be an example.
But it's sort of a vague...
I mean, you know, the theater's a specific example.
That's why it doesn't work for anything else.
You can't really generalize that one.
But the fact that they have to use such generalities...
If he had committed a crime, they would say, he did X, which is a crime.
But if you just were talking and then other things happened, you've got to say stuff like, he lit the flame.
And what if he did?
What if he did? That's either a crime or it's not.
There's not much else to say about it, right?
If it's not a crime, then it's free speech.
And what do you do with that?
All right. Let me ask you this.
And of these 70...
How many Trump voters were there?
70-some million?
74 million?
5 million? How many Trump voters were there?
76 million, somebody says.
All right. Of these 76 million Trump voters, how many of them would have protested the Capitol under the following conditions?
They got an election result they didn't like.
In other words, their candidate lost.
And... The election system itself could be or had been reliably audited.
Under the conditions that your candidate lost, let's say you're Republican, your candidate lost if you believed that the election had been reliably audited, reliably audited, so that you knew that your candidate really lost.
How many...
Giving an exact number of the 76 million Trump voters, how many of them would have marched on the Capitol because they lost for an election that was reliably audited?
Still fucking zero.
Still zero.
69. 420.
It's still zero.
Now... Is that not important context?
Just think about it.
The most important context of this story is that if this election could have been reliably audited, or even was credible, not a single person would have protested.
Not one. In fact, I'll bet you can't get an interview with one person who has said, you know, even if the election was clearly a Biden victory, fair and square, I still wanted to overthrow the government.
Not one. How do we not mention that every time this topic comes up?
Because it's the single most important thing.
Because what the bad guys have allowed you to do is to think past the sale.
They're making you think past the election being credible because it hasn't been proven fraudulent, which is a different topic.
We know it hasn't been proven fraudulent, at least in the courts.
We don't know that it was a credible election that if you audited it, you'd get the same result because you can't fully audit our elections.
So how is that not the most important context that not a single person would have protested if they believed the credibility of the system?
Just the credibility.
And yet, which one of the assholes in the January 6th hearing is working on fixing the root problem?
It's a root problem that made tens of millions of people support the people who marched on the Capitol.
That was the root problem.
So you've got Kamala Harris working on the root problem in Central America.
And do you know what her solution was?
She finally came up with a solution.
She said we have to work together.
I just saw a clip of it today.
And I hadn't thought of that.
But apparently if we work together with the Central American countries, problem solved.
And nobody had come up with that solution until she did.
A lot of people were like, well, what are we going to do about this?
Let's fight.
Like, well, fight?
We're part of your continent.
We have no beef with you.
I don't know. It's just what we do.
Let's fight. Wait a minute.
Why don't we work together?
Wait a minute. What did I just hear?
Why don't we work together?
Say that again. Why don't we work together?
Is there a book on this?
Because it feels like, I mean...
I hadn't thought of it, but when you hear it, it's like, is this coming from some famous philosopher or something?
We'll work together. I feel like this could work.
This could work. Let's tell Kamala Harris that we came up with a solution.
and they call the meeting and Kamala's there and she says I assume she would say this so why are we here?
and then they say we came up with a solution for immigration and then Let's hear it. We could work together.
We could work together.
That could work.
And so there we have it.
Problem solved.
We have a solution.
There's been a speech about it.
But 76 million Trump supporters, all concerned about one problem, which is election credibility, and 750 million...
No, there's fewer than that.
But a lot of assholes in Congress who are making you think that the real problem is that you're complaining about it.
Let me say it again. 76 million Trump voters, not one of them, would have protested an election that had been held in a credible, transparent way.
I'm not saying it was fraudulent.
I'm saying that you can't have credibility unless you have transparency, and we didn't have full transparency.
So it wasn't credible. So the problem, the solution to the gigantic problem of not having election credibility, the solution is to blame the people who complained about it and make it a public show trial of the people who complained about it.
Now, of course, they did more than that.
There was violence. And of course, they'll like to conflate the violence with the other issue, right?
So as long as they can make you distracted over to look at the violence, which there was, then you don't get to talk about the only thing that mattered, which is you weren't quite sure that we have a real election system in this country.
And not one of those people in Congress is working on it.
If you were the news...
If I were a reporter, I'd say, you know, 76 million people were concerned about election integrity, and so that would make that really the biggest problem in our political system to fix.
What were you doing today on that problem?
Oh, I was complaining about the people who complained about it.
That is a whole new level of worthlessness.
Let me list the worthlessness levels.
Number one, the best thing you could do is there's a problem and then you work on it like with a real solution.
That's the best you could do. Number two would be there's a problem and you work on it but you don't have kind of the right solution.
That's not as good. But at least you tried.
You put some effort into it.
You worked on it. Below that would be doing nothing.
Doing nothing would be worse than trying something that didn't work out, because at least you know what doesn't work out next time.
So that's below.
But there is one new level below that.
Do you know what that is?
It's not fixing the problem, not trying and failing to fix the problem, not ignoring the fucking problem.
It's demonizing the people who complained about the fucking problem.
That is the lowest level Of human behavior.
It's barely fucking civilized.
Barely, barely fucking civilized.
It's not American.
I don't know what the fuck it is, but it's not American.
We can all agree on that.
Do you know who's more American than these motherfuckers?
Who are selling this one-sided propaganda to the country and ignoring the real problems?
Do you know who's more American than every fucking one of them?
The caravans.
The caravans coming across the border.
Yeah. Now, I'm not in favor of open immigration.
But I'm just saying, let's put it in perspective.
Who is more American than The people come across illegal in the caravans who want to be part of this country, buy into the system in enough of a way that they'd rather be here than somewhere else.
Who's more American?
It's easy. Let me ask you another question.
Who would you trust?
Who would you trust?
Liz Cheney?
Or a random member of a Central American caravan?
Who would you trust?
Just in any sort of random situation.
Who would you trust?
I mean, really, our priorities are so wrong here.
So wrong. So, did I hear that there are two more weeks of this?
Is that true? Do I still think it'll backfire?
No. No, I don't think the hearings will backfire.
I think that they will be completely successful as an anti-American propaganda attack on citizens of this country.
I think it will work exactly the way they intended it to.
Because the quality of the persuasion is very good.
So if I haven't said that again, let me say, if I were just analyzing the technique, unfortunately it's really good.
Really good. A+. No minds will be changed?
Probably. Not many.
But I wonder if anybody had the same feeling I did.
While I was watching it, I would hear them make claims about how Trump inspired it, the violence, and they would play clips of Trump talking, and I'd say, oh, here it is where he's going to say something, and then he doesn't.
And then they say, and then Trump keeps inspiring this violence.
Here's another clip of him.
And I'm like, okay, here it comes.
I'm listening to it, and then...
He doesn't do anything like that.
And I think, well they must be saving the good ones for later, but I'm too busy to watch it all, so there must be good ones there.
They're just waiting for the good ones.
But I don't think there are any good ones.
We probably would have seen those first.
So it seems like the entire argument against Trump comes down to his backwards talk.
That when he says stuff like, you only need to find 11,000 votes, if an honest person said that about an election, hey, you know, I'm not sure this election was right, and I'd win if you could find 11,000 votes.
You only need to find 11,000 votes.
Do you think you could do that?
Now, if the person saying that was someone that you knew to be honest, you knew to be honest...
You'd say to yourself, oh, what he means, or she means, is legally audit and make sure there's not any votes that can't be thrown out.
But because it's Trump, it's backwards talk.
I want you to find votes.
It really means I want you to manufacture them.
Because finding them and manufacturing them is not really the same thing, is it?
I want you to take care of the cat.
Okay, I'll kill it.
No, I meant feed it, give it water.
I want you to find 11,000 votes.
Okay, we'll fraudulently add 11,000 votes.
No, no. Don't fraudulently add them.
Just go find them.
They're probably there, legally, in a big box somewhere, not counted.
The entire thing is getting people to buy that he talks backwards.
When he talked to Zelensky in his perfect phone call, you had to assume that when he said, we want you to look into this Biden corruption stuff, That if he had been an honest person, you'd say, whoa, here's an honest person who wants to find out if something terrible is happening over in Ukraine that the whole country should know about and really would affect our politics and maybe even nuclear war,
like most important thing you could ever know about, and he's asking for help getting this information.
Now, if you trusted Trump, that's how you'd interpret it.
You know, hey, can you help us look into this Biden situation?
But, since we know Trump does backwards talk, when he said, hey, could you look into this Biden situation, what he really meant was, can you give us something like that Steele dossier where you just make up a bunch of stuff and then I use it to defeat my political opponents?
See, that's backwards talk.
And so half of the country has actually literally been convinced that the president talks backwards.
And that when he says, you know, try to inject light into the lungs for coronavirus, what that really means is, you know, make them drink bleach and then sleep with the fishes.
I guess. Or that when he says that there were some fine people...
Who were just at the Charlottesville protest about the statues, and they were not with the racists at all, that what he really means is, they're totally with the racists.
They are the racists.
See, backwards talk.
It's backwards talk. Now, can we conclude already that this is the best livestream you've ever seen On politics and especially this topic.
Yeah, I know.
It really is.
Somebody says the Oath Keepers are CIA.
Well, don't you assume that all of these groups are infiltrated?
it.
Boy, I'll tell you one thing, though.
There's one thing that the...
The video of the event does really well.
Have you noticed that the Proud Boys have one characteristic, aside from being white and male, most of them, one characteristic?
They're kind of big, aren't they?
Have you noticed how big the Proud Boys are?
I mean, they're just big.
They're just really big.
I don't know if you would join if you were 5'6".
But the thing that you don't realize when you just hear about it is that when you see what the police and law enforcement were up against, and given that the law enforcement, they were not using deadly force, they didn't have a chance.
I mean, they didn't have a chance.
Just the sheer size of the Proud Boys, they just pushed the law enforcement back.
Yeah.
Well, anyway, that's all I've got for now.
Thank you.
Thank you.
This does not work without owning the media, yeah.
Everything that the bad guys are doing with this January 6th hearing, none of this would work unless the media was illegitimate.
Did you see some of the titles that some of the networks were doing?
Attack on Democracy.
So was it CNN? I think it was CNN. Or maybe ABC. But one of them was Attack on Democracy.
And I'm thinking to myself, I feel like that's making you think past the sale.
Because if there's one thing that a group of people with American flags chanting USA wants, I feel like they want to protect democracy.
The entire point of it...
Was in their minds, and you can argue they were wrong, of course, but in their minds they were there to protect democracy.
And the news, the fake news, has the balls that they should dip in chocolate to...
I don't even have to finish the thought.
I'll be like Biden.
Just trail off. Okay.
I think I've changed the world once again and solved most of our problems.
Let's say I solved immigration, if we want to solve it.
And now you understand everything about January 6th.
