Episode 1771 Scott Adams: Let's Talk About All The January 6 Propaganda Destroying The Country
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Biden courting Saudi Arabia
Mushrooms medical benefit list
J6 committee's edited video with audio overlay
Asha Rangappa's conflating trick
AOC's fast one attempt...7 out of 10 states
CNN Bill Press says 2A is racist
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 the highlight of civilization.
You know, it doesn't get much better than this.
No, that's a lie.
It does get better than this.
And all you need to do is a simultaneous sip to take it up a notch.
Because, you know, I've now connected in your brain your dopamine-producing circuitry With this experience, now all you need to do is do the simultaneous sip, and your brain will say, I remember this.
This is when I produced those good chemistries for your brain.
Chemistries. Let's say that's a word.
And all you need to take it up a notch is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or jealousy, 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.
It's the dopamine hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous hip.
Go. Yeah.
Yeah. I can feel everything coming online now.
Well, how many of you are watching basketball?
Anybody watching the basketball finals?
If you're not, don't worry.
I'm not going to talk too much about sports.
But I'll tell you what fascinates me about it, is that when you get to the finals, you have two elite teams, and I swear to God, I can tell who's going to win by their faces.
Now, that's probably just confirmation bias or something like that.
But last night I'm watching, and I thought, well, the Warriors look like they haven't decided to win.
They just didn't look like they'd decided.
They looked a little sleepy or something.
And then, sure enough, they start playing what I thought was not well enough to win.
But they kept it close.
They kept it close to the end.
And there was one interesting point where the coach, Coach Kerr, goes nuts and he's yelling at the ref over a bad call and gets called for a technical.
And I always thought, that is such good coaching because the problem with his team is they weren't mad enough.
So the coach basically made himself angry enough to try to lift the team.
And I think it really works.
I think it's a technique.
When the coach goes off, I think it's a controlled anger because they're trying to bring the team up.
Right? Oh, we got screwed.
Let's win anyway.
But here was the interesting part.
Probably the best player on the field, and there were some great, great players on the other team, was Stephen Curry.
So he gets to the last few minutes of the game, and then Curry always gets the ball first because he's the ball handler.
He has to decide if he's going to pass it to someone else, Or shoot through the four people who have collapsed on him because they're going to do anything to get the ball out of his hands in the final minutes.
And you could tell that the greatest basketball player probably who's living at the moment Decided to win.
It was the damnedest thing to watch.
He literally just decided.
And you could just see it in his face.
A complete change of demeanor.
He went from like, sleepy time, you know, make my baskets, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Last five minutes, Stephen Curry just said, I don't care who else is in the building.
None of you are going to matter.
It was like 15,000 people in the building, you know, 10 players on the courts, plus the coaches, millions of people watching it.
And Stephen Curry made it very clear to every one of us that we didn't matter.
The only person who mattered was him.
And you could see it in his face.
And he just decided.
He just decided. And he just took over the game.
And every time he had the ball, something good happened and won the game.
It is just amazing if you study persuasion on top of sports.
If you watch it for the sports, that's pretty good sports.
Actually, they are fun games.
But watching the mental part and watching their coach manage that and then watching the best player in the world manage his own attitude up.
You can see him, he was like hitting his chest and working himself up because he knew.
He knew that at his best...
Nobody could touch him.
But he wasn't playing at his best.
And so watching him bring himself up to his highest level and then just take over the whole thing was just amazing.
So watching just for that. Justin Bieber...
Has a partially paralyzed face.
He had to, at least temporarily, cancel his singing.
So I guess he got shingles, and one of the rare things that can happen is it can...
I think it's temporary, because he's working on, you know, exercises and stuff to bring it back.
But, of course, what are people saying?
Of course...
At least on social media, people are saying, and you got vaccinated, right?
And people are saying, well, let's see, the vaccination was for a virus, and shingles is a virus, and maybe one has caused the other to be worse, or something like that.
So it's not Bell's palsy, but it's something like that.
It has a different name. But let me toss my own anecdotal evidence into this.
First of all, I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that anything with COVID or vaccinations have anything to do with Justin Bieber's situation.
It's a one-off situation, probably.
But let me tell you what happened to me recently that's weird.
Many of you know that, I don't know, 15 years ago or whenever it was, I lost my ability to smell.
Now, I got it back recently, a couple years ago, when I was prepping for some sinus surgery.
I was doing prednisone, and when I was on prednisone, it cleared up my sinuses and I could smell for the first time in 15 years or whatever it was.
But it didn't last, so I had the sinus surgery, and once I recovered, I didn't have any sense of smell.
So I went back to no sense of smell.
And then I got COVID. And as soon as I was recovering from COVID, my sense of smell came back, and it's still there.
Now, not on any medications, so I know it's not some temporary medication thing.
I don't know if that's a coincidence.
Now, if I had not just had COVID, I would say to myself, oh, I don't know why, but it came back.
Yeah, my sense of smell completely returned.
And it's kind of overwhelming, because there are foods that I've started eating after I'd lost my sense of smell that I found out I don't like.
And I'd never quite tasted them before.
I was responding to the texture and maybe the salt or something.
So, you tell me, do you think COVID returned my sense of smell?
Because if COVID works on that part of the brain that controls your sense of smell, and they say that's the thing, right?
If it can take away your sense of smell, it must be dealing with something about smell.
Is that a coincidence?
What do you think? Probably a coincidence, right?
So my point is that if you look at Justin Bieber and say, well, he got vaccinated, or he had COVID, and then he got this, they're related.
Probably not. Probably not.
Every single person who had a health problem this year, it was probably either after they had COVID or after they had a vaccination, or both.
So I wouldn't make too much of that.
But we wish Justin Bieber well.
So the news is that the Biden administration wants to get closer to Saudi Arabia and do some kind of a reset and be friends with Saudi Arabia, despite the fact that they are accused of killing that Khashoggi guy.
Now, what was my prediction about what Biden would end up doing in the long run?
Whatever Trump did.
My prediction was that Biden would have to eventually start doing whatever Trump was doing that worked.
So, you know, they start out with doing whatever Trump did we won't do, but the trouble is a lot of stuff he did worked.
You pretty much can't ignore the fact that a lot of what he did worked.
And so now Biden has grudgingly decided that Saudi Arabia needs to be our friend, despite the horribleness that they allegedly were involved in.
Did we have to wait?
Did we have to go through this whole period of them not taking Biden's phone calls and not pumping more oil if we wanted to?
That was all a waste of time, wasn't it?
It was all a complete waste of time.
To act like we weren't going to work with Saudi Arabia or be as friendly as we could be.
So Trump was right again.
On a positive note, airlines, in the US anyway, have dropped the requirement that you've got to get tested for COVID before you come back into the United States.
So that's good.
That's good. Who knows if that'll last?
Once again, mushrooms are in the news, and mushrooms are going to be the big story of the next 20 years.
But this is from a CNN story.
Now, it's also useful to point out that CNN is reporting on it.
So there is a mainstream acceptability to psilocybin and mushrooms, not for party purposes, but as actual medical purposes.
And as of today, here are the things That very smart people believe can be treated by mushrooms.
Just listen to this list.
Depression. Apparently it's better than the regular pharmaceuticals.
PTSD. If I stopped now, it would already be the greatest miracle drug ever.
If the only thing it did was depression, Well, if that's the only thing it did, it would be the greatest drug ever.
But it also does PTSD, which for some reason seems to affect like half of us.
So those two things alone would be the wonder drug of all wonder drugs, if it actually did that.
They also think it's strongly indicated to help with cluster headaches.
Now, if you don't know what a cluster headache is, I've never had one.
But my understanding is there are a few things that hurt more than that.
The cluster headache apparently is a really bad, bad, bad, bad thing.
Might help with that.
And other painful conditions.
Yeah. So just think about that.
Oh, it also might help with anxiety, anorexia, OCD, and various forms of substance abuse.
Are you getting this yet?
It's almost impossible, it's almost too big to even hold in your head at the same time.
That there's one widely available, practically free, I mean, compared to pharmaceutical costs, a widely available thing that can help you with cluster headaches, anxiety, anorexia, OCD, depression, substance abuse, And one other one.
Oh? Oh my god.
It's just not real, somebody says.
I don't know, because every time they test it, they get the same result.
I don't think I've heard of one test of mushrooms where they got a bad result.
It looks pretty real to me.
So that's a big deal.
CNN is reporting that what Putin really wants is an imperial empire back like the old days and that Russia is really an imperialist country and they need to own other countries and dominate their neighbors and stuff like that.
And apparently Putin is talking like that about being compared to Peter the Great and other conquerors.
Can we conclude at this point that Putin won the war or lost the war in Ukraine?
If I had to ask you, did Putin win the war or lose the war?
Looks like he won. But, you know, there's still a thing that will be called Ukraine, so everybody gets to say they won, I guess.
Everybody won a little bit.
You didn't lose it.
Yeah, you definitely didn't lose the war.
So, I'm not sure if we know what he intended to do with the larger Ukraine.
I'm still of the point of view that he took a run at taking the whole country, but when that wasn't easy, he settled for 90% of the good part, which was pretty smart.
Yeah, I think Putin is not going to die of any disease.
He's not going to be deposed.
He won the war.
And you will probably be more popular when it winds down, at least internally.
So, I don't know.
It looks like we know how this ends now, don't we?
I feel like we know the endgame.
The endgame is Putin says, I denazified this place, and then we say, we kept you from taking Kyiv, and everybody wins, except the Ukrainian people and all the soldiers who died and their families.
Let me say this. Anytime people show you edited video, whether the clip is edited or it's put together with other clips from other things, And any time that they put an audio overlay over that,
especially if the audio comes from a different time or place, which is what the January 6th committee is doing, so they're putting together selected videos that have been edited the way they want them edited, and they've put audio overlay in one case of Trump giving his speech and making it sound like he was praising the people who were being violent when he was talking about a peaceful protest.
And here's the thing. Are we not sophisticated enough yet, as voters and the public, to know that whenever anybody does this, it's propaganda?
It wouldn't matter who did it.
If the Pope makes you a mixed video, it's propaganda.
If your best friend that you trust completely makes you a video compilation and puts some audio over it, Your friend is manipulating you.
It's not your friend.
I don't know how much more clearly I can say it.
There's no exception to this.
That's the part that people probably don't get.
People probably say, well, I get that video could be misleading.
No. No, I'm not saying video could be misleading.
It's only misleading. It is only misleading.
Because you can only get little pinpoint views of a much larger event.
So there's no way that the pinpoints of this little video clip, this little video clip, and then they decide which of those are shown, and then they put them together in the order that they put them, and then they put extra audio over it, and they put the anguished cries of the law enforcement people who were most worried, or sounded most worried, And they leave out the ones who maybe were less worried.
Every bit of that is criminal, basically.
It should be criminal. It should be criminal.
We're allowing our government to do something right in front of us that should be against the law.
But the only reason it's not is that the people doing it make the laws.
It should be against the law.
Let me say this much more clearly.
The process of publicly showing edited videos to defame and hurt the reputation of another person in public without allowing any rebuttal should be illegal.
Now, I get freedom of speech and all that, but that would be allowing somebody to, you know, respond.
If somebody could respond in a way that was, you know, met the topic, well, I'd say, okay, well, that's just free speech.
People are lying, but then other people are correcting them.
That's the best you can do. But if you have your government...
Giving you misleading edited audio and video with the purpose of changing the course of politics in this country.
That's their stated purpose.
Well, obvious purpose.
I don't know if it's stated. But the obvious purpose is to degrade Republicans' chances in elections.
They're doing this right in front of us.
It should actually be illegal.
Because it's just abuse.
They're abusing the public.
They're abusing Republicans.
They're abusing Democrats by making the Democrats think this is some kind of a reasonably transparent system.
It's not. It's just propaganda.
And I'm kind of amazed that we put up with it.
Al Franken tweeted, I don't see anyone watching, talking about the January 6th hearings, he says, I don't see anyone watching isn't infuriated and heartbroken.
And I agreed. But I don't think we're watching it with the same filter.
When I'm watching it, I am infuriated.
I'm infuriated at what they're doing to us right now, like right in front of us.
They're not even hiding the fact that this is a purely political process.
Nobody's hiding it. They're just trying to hurt other members of the United States, conservatives.
So... Yes, I agree with you, Al Franken.
It is infuriating and heartbreaking, not only for the reasons that he says, which I completely agree with.
If you watch the videos and you see the actual real violence and people had serious injuries, serious injuries, the law enforcement people, there's nothing to joke about.
So yes, that was infuriating and heartbreaking to see all those injuries and that violence.
But it's also infuriating and heartbreaking to see how the Democrats have weaponized that to use it against people who were not there doing any violence.
So yeah, it's really disgusting.
Both ways. Both ways.
You're completely right, Al Franken.
It's disgusting in exactly the way you say it is.
But also...
But also...
If I had to rank them for which was worse...
The events of January 6th or the hearings, it's not even close.
The events of January 6th with the violence?
Really bad. Really bad.
Like, I'm not minimizing the violence.
That was really bad.
But it's not as bad as what the Democrats are doing in the hearings.
I consider that worse.
Because the risks are higher.
There was no risk that the country was going to be overthrown on January 6th.
That wasn't a risk.
Not really. Nobody could hold the country because they controlled the room.
We have this room.
Now we control the country.
It doesn't really work that way. You could control any room in the country and it wouldn't give you control of the country.
So there wasn't really that much risk, except the specific violence that happened tragically.
But this hearing, this January 6th thing is, to me, this is a gut punch to the Republic.
Because the fact that we even allow this as a public, I feel like an insurrection right now.
Like, I didn't feel any urge whatsoever To storm the Capitol after the election.
Not once did I say to myself, ah, I wish I was there storming that Capitol.
Not once. Not once.
But I watched the hearings, and I think, I actually want to storm the Capitol during these hearings.
Because they're just fucking us right in front of us.
They're not even trying to hide it.
Right? The fact that they're not allowing any counter-argument In a practical sense, they're not allowing any.
It's so disreputable, so disgusting, so non-American, that if I were going to do an insurrection, and I don't recommend it, so I don't recommend any violence, no insurrections, but if I were going to do one, they're talking me into it pretty well.
The Democrats are doing a real good job of saying that they should be overthrown.
Because you know who you should overthrow?
A government that is screwing the public right in front of you with impunity.
They're screwing the public right in front of you with impunity.
That is a cause for insurrection.
Now, I don't recommend it.
I'm just saying that what they're doing is worse than the actual event that they're talking about.
Does anybody agree with that?
That the hearings are worse Than actually January 6th.
And January 6th was plenty bad.
Not minimizing January 6th.
Not even a little bit.
But the hearings are worse.
The hearings are worse.
So I think there should be a hearing about the hearings.
I think when Republicans take control, there should be a hearing about why these hearings were allowed to happen.
And then the Democrats should not be allowed to respond.
Why? Just to let them know how it feels.
Just to give them a sense of whether that was a good idea, that having a little bit of power let them just completely stop the other point of view.
So when the Republicans take control, they should immediately put together an impeachment thing for Schumer.
You have to impeach Schumer for saying that the...
The Supreme Court justices are going to reap the whirlwind, and obviously it caused some attempted violence against Kavanaugh and his family.
So I think the Republicans have to push Schumer up for impeachment.
They just have to.
Like, that just has to happen.
The other thing they should do is a hearing on how this hearing was put together.
Because I think they could produce evidence that it was a purely political propaganda hack job and everybody involved should be censored.
Or censured or whatever it is.
Censured. Why not?
Because we keep treating it like it's normal or something.
The January 6th hearings are not normal.
This is an attack on part of the country.
That's the whole point of it, is to degrade Republicans.
I'm going to call it the big lie that the January 6th protesters wanted anything more than a credible election outcome.
Because here's the question that nobody is asking, even the conservative news entities.
Here's a question I want to see a Democrat asked.
Do you believe that if the election had been both transparent and easy to audit so that we could sort of quickly say, okay, that was completely right, do you think that even one Republican would have marched on the Capitol if they were sure that the election was credible and they could audit it and we could find out for sure?
Not one.
Not one.
No Oath Keepers.
No Proud Boys. No Steve Bannons.
No nobody. No nobody.
Even Trump would have said, well, damn it.
I guess I lost.
Even Trump would have said that.
So why are we ignoring the big problem, which is clearly the big problem, that the election was not credible?
We act like that's not the big question.
The big question is what people did about an election that wasn't credible.
Now remember, when I say not credible, and I have to say this so I don't get kicked off of social media, when I say the election wasn't credible, I mean people didn't believe it.
Not that it was rigged.
Or that it was inaccurate.
So I don't have any evidence that would suggest the election was anything but accurate.
Personally. But I also don't have any way to know.
So I'm saying it's not credible, because we can't know if it was accurate.
We can just know that the courts didn't find anything.
which is completely different than knowing everything was fine.
So that's the big lie.
The big lie is that Republicans were there and would have been there even if they knew Trump lost.
Do you think there's any oath keeper or proud boy who if they knew that Trump lost, they knew it, would have protested?
I mean, that way.
None. None.
Here's the other big lie that the Democrats are telling about the hearing.
And it goes like this.
Bill Barr believed that the election was fair.
Therefore, logically, Trump is lying when he says he didn't believe it was fair.
You see the connecting tissue there?
The Democrats are saying this in public with a straight face.
Let me say it again so you can follow the logic.
Bill Barr told Trump that in Bill Barr's opinion the election was fair.
Therefore, Trump must have secretly believed it and he's lying when he said it wasn't.
What is that?
Does anybody think Does that make sense?
The Republicans are saying that matter-of-factly like there's some logical connecting tissue between what Bill Barr thinks and what Trump thinks.
It's not the most common thing in the Trump era that Trump disagreed with not only his advisers but everybody else.
The most common thing that Trump does is disagree with everybody.
It's one of the reasons people like him.
It's because he's not afraid to disagree with anything.
He'll disagree with anything.
Now, do you believe that Trump believed that he lost?
Do you think that Trump said, well, if Bill Barr says I lost, I guess I lost?
No. Let me not read Trump's mind, but I'm going to read his mind now.
All right? Because I always tell you, you can't read minds, so you don't really know what anybody thinks.
And I'm going to do it anyway.
Trump thinks that he's smarter than Bill Barr about this.
If you're Trump, why would you think Bill Barr was right?
Why would you think that?
Because Bill Barr did an audit of the system?
No, he didn't do a fucking audit of the system.
Is it because the system was transparent?
No, it's not because the system was transparent.
Is it because Bill Barr had extra information about the election so he knew it was credible, whereas others did not?
No, he didn't have any fucking extra information.
He was one guy with a fucking opinion that was good for him.
Bill Barr had an opinion with no factual basis whatsoever that coincidentally happened to be good for Bill Barr.
Right? Because Bill Barr can now say, well, I don't agree with Trump.
Now, I think that was his actual opinion.
I'm not saying he was lying.
I think Bill Barr's actual opinion as the election was, you know, there's no evidence of fraud.
But the thought that Trump would believe Bill Barr when Bill Barr's opinion is not based on anything.
It's not based on anything.
He's just saying he hadn't seen any information, and therefore the claims were...
And some of the claims were obvious BS, you know, about the Venezuelan-Maduro connection, stuff like that.
Now, I said those were BS as well.
They were obvious BS, in my opinion.
So I guess I can't get past the fact that the news can say anything now.
Like, that is just a ridiculous thing to say, that because Ivanka and Bill Barr thought the election was fair, therefore Trump did.
That is the most ridiculous, ridiculous assumption.
And they're just selling that like that's a matter of fact.
You don't even need to discuss that.
If Bill Barr knew, then obviously Trump knew.
Nope. No logic to it at all.
It's not even likely.
It's not only illogical, it's not even...
I mean, it almost seems impossible.
All right. So I had a little back-and-forth with an anti-Trumper, CNN-connected person, Asha Rangappa, on CNN. She works for CNN sometimes.
So she tweeted...
That you could tell that there was violent intent and she quoted a number of people to show that there was clearly premeditated violent intent.
So here are the quotes showing you that there was premeditated violent attempt.
Trump said, quote, it'll be wild.
It'll be wild.
Bannon said, quote, all hell is going to break loose.
Oath Keeper said, there's no standard political or legal way out of this.
And the Proud Boys said, quote, standing by, sir.
So, according to Asha, if you put those all together, there are strong indications that the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, Bannon, and Trump were at least on the same page with a suggestion that they may have coordinated, but there's no evidence of that.
But it's sort of suggested.
And that this language is indicating an intention for violence.
Now, does any of that sound like an intention for violence to you?
Because it's presented as if, well, look at it right here.
You can look at it with your own eyes.
And I read them and I thought, it'll be wild.
It'll be wild.
That's what Trump said. It'll be wild.
That's a call to violence?
Wild? It sounds like a party.
It sounds like an act of protest.
It'll be wild. It'll be a lot of people.
Or all hell is going to break loose?
I mean, that's what protests are, right?
All hell breaks loose.
It's sort of hyperbole. Standing by...
Standing by is literally the opposite of go do something.
It's... I guess if you take it to that next level, it's like, but he means standby until I tell you to do some violence.
It's not really there.
Just the standby part.
And that there's no standard political or legal way into this.
So I responded to that tweet from Asha by saying, conservatives are not shy about recommending violence when the situation calls for it.
If they ever do call for violence, it won't look anything like these words.
Do you agree with me? Do you agree that if conservatives ever did call for violence, it wouldn't look like this?
Here, let me tell you how I would not call for violence.
Now, I don't identify as conservative, but just use myself as an example.
If I wanted you to be violent on my behalf, you know, to join me in an insurrection, here's what I would not say.
It's going to be wild.
Or stand by.
I wouldn't use any of those words.
So when I said that that's not how conservatives would talk if they actually were planning violence, Asha responded to me, and she goes, cool.
Will it look something like...
And then she gave a quote from one of the indictments.
So there's one of the Oath Keepers who is being indicted for seditious conspiracy.
And one of his quotes, this Oathkeeper guy, is, quote, we will have to do a bloody, massively bloody revolution against them.
In other words, if things didn't go his way or if Biden got elected, I think they said, we will have to do a bloody, massively bloody revolution against them.
And then Asha says, will it look like that?
So what do you think? Did she make her case?
That conservatives were talking in a premeditated way about violence that day.
Well, here's the first question.
If you had this quote, why did you go with Trump saying, it'll be wild?
If you've got somebody literally saying, let's do a bloody, massively bloody thing, why would you use these other quotes?
Do you know why?
You would use the other quotes because they're about specific people who had nothing to do with the administration.
The whole point of this fake hearing is to embarrass Trump and the administration.
And this Oath Keeper, there's no way to tie him to the administration.
It's just somebody who had that point of view.
Now, let me ask you this.
I think that Asha Rangappa probably doesn't spend too much time with Second Amendment-loving conservatives.
Because even on social media, conservatives talk about bloody revolutions every day.
It's hard to go a week without some conservatives saying, well, we're going to have to get out of our guns and have a bloody revolution.
It's like a Tuesday for conservatives.
And if you'd never heard it, like you didn't know, it's sort of just the normal hyperbole way that they talk...
You would think that they actually meant it.
But it literally is just how they talk.
Because the context is the Second Amendment, and its function, as they would see it, as they would see it, is function to protect the country.
If things go too bad, you know, you can do your violent revolution if you have to.
So it's just how they talk.
Now, they also make it conditional.
Have you ever noticed that?
When conservatives talk about, oh, there could be a bloody revolution or whatever, it's always conditional.
If things went too far, we have this option.
They don't say on Tuesday, get your gun and meet me in the Capitol.
They say, if things went this far, it's a good thing we have these guns.
Things would get wet.
And this Oath Keeper was also talking in the hypothetical.
We will have to do it bloody massively.
He's not saying, meet me here and we're going to do this.
It again is that hypothetical tough gun talk that Republicans do.
And I'll have to admit, if you had never heard it before, it would sound a lot like he's planning a revolution.
But if you're used to hearing it all the time, as I am...
Now, tell me if I'm wrong.
Give me a fact check of this.
So I'm asserting that it is normal for Republicans to talk tough about bloody revolutions with guns, but don't really mean it.
Because it's always if this went too far, but it never goes that far.
What do you think? Is it typical talk, and do you not take it as being too serious?
Yeah, it's bravado.
It's the reason they have guns.
If your whole reason for existing is to defend the republic, then when you talk about your reason for existing, you would say things such as, if things go too far, we're going to use our guns to do something bloody.
So... Somebody says I'm on point today.
Is it because I took mushrooms?
No. You know what it is?
A number of people have told me that in the last week, my podcasts have been unusually good lately.
Now, I think they're right, because I felt it myself, but it has more to do with what's in the news.
If the topics in the news are straight-up propaganda, then I have something to say.
But if all the news is about Justin Bieber's face, I don't have as much to say.
So it's not so much that I got more clever recently.
It's just the news is more in my sweet spot.
All right. Let me tell you what it might look like if conservatives ever decided to stage a bloody revolution.
Are you ready? This will be my impression of Of conservatives who had actually decided, not just talking about it, actually decided to have a bloody revolution.
Here's how they talk about it.
Do you understand yet?
Do you understand yet?
You understand, right?
Don't worry until it gets quiet.
That's all I'm going to say.
Don't worry until they stop talking.
If they're talking, they're not serious.
When they stop talking, you better fucking hide.
It's the stopping talking you got to worry about, really.
Because if you have a gun and you plan to do something bad with it, unless you're like a crazy mass shooter, special cases, But if you're actually just trying to defend the country with an actual gun, and it's an actual plan, you're not going to talk about it.
I mean, you're not going to talk about it in some public kind of way.
Anyway, there is a big difference.
This is one of those situations that I think if you don't spend enough time around the other, whoever's on the other political side, you don't really understand what they're saying.
Even the words mean different things to them.
So there's so much that conservatives talk about that sounds completely different on the left.
And I don't think they realize it.
Because lots of times they're making stuff up and trying to frame things in the worst possible way.
But sometimes I think they honestly don't understand how conservatives talk and think.
But... Anyway, when Anna had to retreat to this seditious conspiracy oath-keeper situation, notice the trick that they all play.
It's the conflating trick.
Well, let me tell you how violent Trump's inner circle is.
So here are some quotes about all the violent things that his inner circle said.
Okay, they don't actually sound violent.
Well then, let me take a violent statement from somebody who has nothing to do with Trump or any of his advisors.
Okay? Well, that looks pretty violent, doesn't it?
I rest my case.
No, wait a minute. You don't rest your case.
Your case was that Trump and his advisers were planning something violent.
There's no evidence of that.
You had to go to a whole different guy who had nothing to do with anything to come up with some violence.
And then you pretended like somehow those were all the same topic.
That's not the same topic.
It's completely not the same topic.
But if you just say it fast...
You know, you can get your side to agree that it was the same topic.
So AOC decided to argue with Data about this gun control situation.
And she tweeted that according to CBS News, out of the top ten deadliest cities in America, seven of them are in Republican-run states.
What do you think about that?
What do you think about that?
But that's something you never heard before, did you?
Seven out of ten of the deadliest cities are in Republican-run states.
Apparently it's true.
Apparently it's true. Does that change your opinion about anything?
Seven of the ten deadliest cities in America are in Republican-run states.
Why are you asking who the mayor is of those cities?
Why does that have anything to do with anything?
Yes, she is trying to pull a fast one on you, which the commenters were quick to point out.
Chief among them, the Panda Tribune, who you should be following.
Follow the Panda Tribune account.
Got some good stuff there. And the Panda Tribune counters her claim that seven of the ten deadliest cities are in Republican-run states.
He goes, fact, ten of the top ten deadliest U.S. cities are run by Democrats.
So if you go down to the mayor level, all Democrats.
Everyone. Top ten.
But AOC has turned it into, well, sure, the top ten deadliest cities are all run by Democrats, but what about the governor of the state?
Now, there's a little bit of a point there, because the governor of the state could do something about gun laws.
But, so could the states, or so could the cities, right?
Can't the cities have their local...
Local, you know, they can do more to fight crime.
There's lots of stuff they can do.
So, interesting.
Bill Maher continues to do his weekly, I don't know, service to America.
You know, I've criticized Bill Maher for his, what I think is Trump derangement syndrome.
Which I really think he has a bad case of.
But when he criticizes his own team, you have to take his own team, meaning left-leaning publications.
In this case, he says the New York Times buried the story about the attempted murder on a Supreme Court justice and said that if someone had come to kill a liberal Supreme Court justice, it would be front-page news.
Now, that's just fair, is it not?
That is a fair political comment, that the New York Times buried the story because it didn't agree with their politics.
And he's calling them out on a prominent platform.
Again, I will reserve the right to disagree with Bill Maher on a number of topics, but if there's anybody who's being more of a patriot, like just as a pure service to the country, more than him right now, I don't know. It'd be hard to think of somebody who's doing more good for the country right now than Bill Maher is.
So, good for him.
And I don't know if he's getting through.
I feel like he probably does.
Because, you know, he's got an audience that finds him credible.
And should. Here's what I've been waiting for.
There's an article in CNN opinion piece by Bill Press.
I think it's interesting that somebody whose last name is Press works in the news business.
Anyway. He's told us that the Second Amendment is racist.
How many of you knew that the Second Amendment is a racist amendment?
Do you know why? I'll tell you his argument.
Damn right. Why is it racist, the Second Amendment?
Well, as Bill Press informs us, he says, By the way, I think that's a fair characterization.
It's sort of jarring. To hear the founders referred to as white racist Virginians.
So when I first read it, I'm like, ugh, that's going too far.
And I thought, oh, they actually own slaves, in many cases.
So yeah, they were actually literally white racists.
And apparently the second amendment was added, according to noted academic Carol Anderson, That it was about having militias to control slavery so that the white militias could have the firepower to keep the slaves in slavery.
Have you ever heard that?
What do you think?
Do you think historically that that's an accurate...
I don't know.
I'd have to hear a counterpoint.
But it does sound a little bit credible on the surface.
I mean, I don't know if it's true.
But it does sound like maybe they did want white militias to keep slavery under control.
What do you think? Now, here's my second part of my opinion.
It doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter. Here's what I think is the weakest argument about the Second Amendment.
What did the founders intend?
We're supposed to make the decision based on that, right?
What did the founders intend?
But it really doesn't matter.
It doesn't. It matters what the Supreme Court says.
And apparently, the Supreme Court can make up laws.
You know, they made up a few.
I think that they made up...
I believe that they made up the...
Roe vs. Wade, you know, the privacy argument.
And again, I'm not arguing for it or against it, so this is not my opinion about it.
It just looks like a made-up right.
But I think the Second Amendment is close to that.
You know, it's a different situation.
But I think the Second Amendment is a made-up right.
It's a real one, and I'm totally in favor of it.
But it's made up. Meaning that if you're looking for what do the founders intend, that's a good way to approach it.
It's just not relevant. It won't make any difference.
Because all that matters is what the Supreme Court says.
And apparently they can just make shit up.
Now, let me be very careful about what I'm saying.
I'm not saying this is the way it should be.
If you're arguing the way it should be, is we should look at the original intent and base it on that, I'd say that's a good argument.
I'm not disagreeing with that at all.
I'm saying that the way things should be is irrelevant.
Because they're not.
It's just not. So it doesn't matter if you should do that.
If you're not, all that matters is you're not.
So if you can make stuff up, all that matters to me is if you made something up that was good.
Right? So that's the only filter I put on it.
I say, I don't care if you made up a right.
Did you do a good job?
Why do you trust the founders more than you trust the Supreme Court?
I don't. I think the founders were flawed people in a completely different time.
They did an amazing job, but it was flawed people in a different time.
If the Supreme Court are also flawed people, but some of the best that we can come up with, and they're doing the best they can in our current time, that is every bit as good to me.
As what the founders tried to do for us.
So I'm not saying the system should work the way I just described it.
I'm just saying it does work that way.
If I could change it, maybe I would.
But I can't. So I'm not terribly upset by any disconnect between why a right or an amendment was there and how we interpret it today.
I have no problem with that at all.
In fact, I think I prefer it, actually.
I prefer that the court has the flexibility to take into account modern situations.
Because every way you go is a problem.
The thing that would be the dumbest and worst thing to do is to say that because the founders said X, we should still stick with it.
I think that would be the worst thing to do.
But it's also good that there's lots of resistance to changing original interpretations.
So I like it just the way it is.
I wouldn't change anything about our system.
You want it to be really hard to create a new right, but if you need it, and if you trust the Supreme Court as an independent-ish group of people, that's probably the best we can do.
I don't have a problem with it at all.
All right. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is everything I wanted to talk about, I believe.
Did I leave anything out?
Is there anything I forgot? Yeah, and there's also the discussion about whether it only applies to militias, well-organized militias, to which I say, I don't care.
I really don't care what it was originally intended to be about.
And then other people say, well, it should include the ARs or not include the ARs, to which I say, I don't care what they intended.
I don't care at all.
I just care what makes sense.
The militia was every free citizen.
Yeah, but you know, that's just an argument I don't care about.
I don't care what they meant by militia.
It's just not relevant to me.
It's 2022. If the Supreme Court says it means a group, then it means a group.
If they say it means an individual, it means an individual.
That's just what it's going to be.
Um... Sudden adult death syndrome.
I haven't seen any evidence that we're having any sudden deaths that we didn't normally have.
I'm open to it.
I mean, I don't rule it out.
But I haven't seen any evidence of it.
All right.
300 million guns mean they aren't going away any time soon.
Um... Which means there is no constitution.
Well, that's a little too far.
Well-regulated back then meant well-stocked.
Oh, is that true? That would be interesting.
So, well-regulated militia means they're well-stocked?
Because they're regular? So, some of you are saying yes to that.
They're well-regulated means well-stocked.
Interesting. Yeah, again, it doesn't matter to me.
Because it wouldn't matter what they intended.
I have no interest in what they intended.
I only have an interest in what makes sense in 2022.
That's it. In good working order.
All right. I think we've handled all the big questions here.
And again, this is the best live stream you've ever seen in your life.
Catherine says, once again, your knowledge of history is zero.
Well, Catherine, everybody's knowledge of history is zero.
Let me knock you down a peg, Catherine.
Catherine believes I have a poor understanding of history.
Catherine, have you been watching the news?
When the historians write the news about January 6th, what's it going to say?
Depends who writes it, right?
But Catherine, you believe that the news that we're watching now is at least half fake.
Maybe you think it's on one side or the other.
But you know the news that you see now is largely fake.
But you believe that history, which is written by the winners, is accurate.
And you believe that historians can look back and get into the minds of these people and know what they thought, when we can't do that today.
We don't even know what Trump is thinking.
But somehow these historians in 2022 can go back and figure out what James Madison was really thinking based on his writings.
It's not a thing.
History is fiction.
So Catherine, I take your criticism as accurate.
I do not have the same grasp of fiction that you do.
The difference is, I'm smart enough to fucking know it.
If you don't know that you've been brainwashed by all of your history, maybe this is when you found it out.
So Catherine, maybe you should get off your high horse and learn that history is all fake.
And if you think you know what anybody was thinking or why they did anything, you're a fucking idiot.
Is that plain enough?
Anybody who thinks that they can understand what people were thinking because they studied their history, they did a deep dive, they saw a podcast, no, I'm sorry.
You don't know anything about history.
In fact, you don't know the first thing about history, which is that it's fake.
If you don't know the first thing, I'm pretty sure you don't know the second thing.
Does Scott know about the Federalist Papers?
Yes. And I don't care.
I don't care. Have I read them?
No. And it wouldn't matter.
I feel like I'm having trouble making my point.
It doesn't matter what they said in the past.
I only care what makes sense today.
That's it. Catherine says, yeah, go with your insults and put-downs.
Catherine, who started it?
Did not Catherine just insult my knowledge of history?
I feel like she started it.
Am I right? I didn't start it.
But if you insult me personally, I will call you a fucking cunt, and I'll do it in public.
I'll do it as often as you want.
It does cost me a few hundred dollars in monetization when I say that.
But if you're going to be that way, just be that way.
Just own it. Just own it.
All right.
That's all for today.
All right.
Catherine, this doesn't sound like this is the live stream for you, so maybe you should find some content that's a little less challenging.
And it doesn't matter is not an argument.
Yes, it is. Yes, it is.
If it doesn't matter to me, that's all I'm saying.
