Episode 1954 Scott Adams: More Twitter Revelations, So Juicy! Russian Arms Dealer Has Some Surprises
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Rogue attacks on our infrastructure
Daniel Ellsberg has Chelsea Manning files?
Wuhan lab's American whistleblower
Michael Shellenberger's Twitter Files report
Yoel Roth's Twitter decisions
Rich Baris elections debate offer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Because it might be the best thing that's ever happened to you, and you won't believe this part, but it's going to get better.
Yeah. Yeah.
It gets better than this.
Right? Right? I know.
It's hard to believe. But all you need to make it better is a cupper mugger, a glass of tanker, chalice or stein, a canteen, joker, flask, a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called The Simultaneous Sip.
It happens now.
Go. Ah.
Very good. Well, I would like to start with an angry screed against guitars.
Some of you know I bought myself a nice guitar and I said to myself, how hard could that be?
How hard could it be to play a guitar?
And then you find out, okay, the first thing you need to know is you need to deform your fingers so that they can form unnatural claw-like shapes that you'll use in a non-obvious claw-like way.
Now, if you have a normal-sized hand, You need to be able to spread these.
So my guitar teacher said, try putting a tennis ball between these two fingers, like spread them out, to which I sat there and I thought, are you seriously telling me I have to deform my body to play an instrument?
Now, I've got a complaint, and it goes like this.
I'll try to say this without the F word, but I don't think I'm going to be able to get all the way through it.
Serenity now. And it goes like this.
If you invented a musical instrument, or perhaps a sporting event, and you invented that sporting event or musical instrument a hundred fucking years ago, maybe every now and then you should take a look at it, see if you could upgrade the interface.
Say to yourself, I wonder if anything's improved in the last hundred years?
For example, when basketball was invented, and they said, let's put this hoop at ten feet, do you think they were saying to themselves, oh, this'll be fun when seven-foot tall people overtake the sport, and the only thing you're really finding out is how tall people are, give or take, you know, a curry.
Do you think you would have invented basketball the same way?
Hey, let's invent things where a seven-footer will just stand near the hoop and ruin the game for the rest of us.
Hey, I'm here to ruin the game for the rest of you because it wasn't invented for seven-foot tall people.
Didn't see this coming, did you?
Or how about tennis?
Are any of you dumb enough to play tennis?
I was dumb enough to play tennis for, I don't know, 50 years until I quit.
Do you know what ruined tennis?
The equipment. The game stayed the same, and somebody kept inventing stronger players and more powerful rackets until the entire game is some guy with an arm the size of a tree trunk serving bullets at the other person, and the other person's like...
And that's basically the sport of tennis.
Every hundred fucking years, you should take a look at your sport and see if anything has changed to maybe update it a little bit.
Now, I'm no Elon Musk.
But if I were, I would buy all of the guitar-making manufacturers in the world.
And I'd say, you know what you shouldn't make anymore is an instrument that requires you to put fingers in a distorted monster way around a thing that's way too thick for your hand, and like this, like that, don't do that. Instead, let me just suggest that each of these chords could possibly be maybe one button.
Yes, I know there are more chords than you could fit with buttons, perhaps, but you only need three to do most.
You know, you could do a lot with three chords.
You give me 50 chords, one button apiece, I think I could learn to play the guitar.
But I wouldn't learn to play the guitar like this, like this, deforming my body.
Oh, hey everybody! Good news, I've been playing the guitar so long that my hand is now deformed.
Permanently. And now I'm a great guitar player.
Look at this. Look at my sport.
Alright, I just had to get that out of my system.
Now can we talk about the news?
That was just a point of personal privilege there.
Sorry. Joshua Steidman has a very interesting thread.
You've heard about these seemingly independent attacks on our grid.
So in a few cases, people have snipers and fired bullets into power grids and local places.
But there seems to be some kind of maybe a pattern.
There seems to be an uptick in what look to be rogue attacks on the infrastructure.
Now, we don't have any evidence that these are coordinated.
But as Joshua so wisely points out, if a foreign country wanted to mess with us, and as he uses the phrase, put sand in our gears...
One of the ways you could do it, which is a known, understood way to do things, is the intelligence agency from another unfriendly country could look for rogue criminal elements who would be willing to do an attack for money.
And then it wouldn't be obvious where the attacks were coming from.
It would look like a bunch of individual rogue terrorists.
And Joshua points out that there's There's at least three possibilities here, but they all have to be considered.
One is that they are individual attacks, and there's something that's causing more of them, but maybe not anybody coordinating it.
Number two, the possibility is it's an actual coordinated attack in which the foreign government is trying to hurt the United States, and it's just about hurting us.
That's possible. The other possibility is the funny one.
That there's a foreign country that's trying to send us a message that they could destroy our grid anytime they want to, but we're not getting the message because it's too indirect.
It's too subtle. Like, okay, are they trying to send us a message?
Because they look like individual attacks, but they do have something in common.
But we don't know who would be sending the message.
So it might actually be...
One possibility is that it's a failed attempt to send a message that somebody could take us out if they want to.
And we're not getting it.
Now, I don't know which one to bet on.
But I like the way of thinking that says don't eliminate...
Don't eliminate all the possibilities.
Like, you need to look into it a little bit.
All right. So, have you ever heard me say, for those of you who are new to my livestream, can the people who have been watching me for a while, how many times have I said that in the long run the United States and Russia are natural allies?
The actual phrase, the word natural allies.
Can you confirm that I've said that way too many times?
I've said that so many times.
Well, today in the news freed Russian arms dealer Victor Bout.
He's the one who was traded for Greiner, the WNBA player.
So he's free now.
He had been in an American jail for his arms dealing, which were pretty bad because he armed a lot of African and other countries that killed a lot of people.
But it turns out that Victor, the dangerous Russian arms dealer, is very pro-American.
He's very pro-American.
He speaks really good English, with an accent, but he's really good English.
And in jail, he said he would hang around with a number of rural people.
I don't know why he mentioned rural.
Probably because they were white, now that I think about it.
But he said he hung around with a lot of rural people, you know, Americans, and he said they were great.
He goes, they were all interested in Russia.
Nobody had any bad feelings about Russia.
He had no bad feelings about Americans.
Loves Americans. And he said, he actually used the same phrase.
He said that Russia and the United States are natural allies.
Did you see that coming?
Who had that on their bingo card?
Free Russian arms dealer says US and America are natural allies.
We should maybe yak that way.
Scott doesn't say we are natural allies.
First time hearing it since 2017.
So there's somebody out here who says I've never said that.
But there are plenty of people who've heard me say it probably 12 times.
Yeah, I've said it a lot.
So, I don't know if that means anything, but it's interesting to have a famous Russian arms dealer agree with me.
Because if you don't have a famous Russian arms dealer agreeing with your livestream, well, you need to work harder.
Try to get them on your side.
Today is full of actually really interesting news.
Like the kind where you just say, really?
Really? Is that true?
All right, here's another one.
How many of you know Daniel Ellsberg from the, what's the Pentagon Papers, right?
So he had some secret U.S. government documents.
And so that was, you know, the famous story of Daniel Ellsberg.
So Daniel Ellsberg now is quite elderly.
I don't know how old he is, but it looks like he's around 80-ish, right?
And here's something we just learned.
Apparently, Assange gave Daniel Ellsberg a full copy of all the Chelsea Manning stuff that WikiLeaks had, just in case.
So Daniel Ellsberg had the full copy the whole time of everything that Assange had produced, and the reason that he'd given it to Ellsberg The reason he had given it to Ellsberg is as an emergency backup, because he was the one person that he trusted to get it out to the public.
That's kind of amazing, isn't it?
And we're just finding it out.
And then here's the added boost on top of it.
Ellsberg is saying that if Assange is guilty, Of simply possessing the documents, because I think, I don't know the specific legal argument here, but I think the argument is that simply possessing these secret documents is a crime.
And Ellsberg is saying, if that's a crime, you better indict me, because I have them.
Right? He illegally has these documents, but he would say that he legally has them because they were given to him by somebody he did not steal them.
So that's legal if you're not the stealer, I guess.
Now, he makes the point that if this were Great Britain, It would definitely be illegal because they have a specific law that says you can't have any secret government documents.
That's my understanding. But Ellsberg points out that in the United States we don't have that law.
And simply possessing the documents is not a crime and he'd be willing to test it.
Like he's actually begging for the, you know, let's bring it on.
Let's test this in court.
How much do you love that?
This is the America that I want to live in, right?
This little scenario where somebody had some information they thought would be good for the citizens, they found the most trustworthy citizen they could find on this topic, according to Assange apparently, gave them the documents, had a good backup plan, and then the backup plan is working not exactly the way Assange planned, but in a different way.
It's working. In other words, Ellsberg now just...
He entered the fight.
If he had not had those documents...
Ellsberg is 91. Thank you.
Ellsberg is 91. If Ellsberg were not 91 and still willing to fight, this would look different.
This would look different.
All right. So here's what I tentatively favor, but I'm going to tell you that I'm not...
Fully informed on the whole Assange WikiLeaks thing.
I feel like I might have some dark corners there that need a little light in my understanding.
But here's where I'm at.
I'd like to see a public trial.
I mean, I don't even know if that's an option.
But would we be able to see the trial or would it be a bunch of secret stuff so it'd have to be behind closed doors?
If it's behind closed doors, I don't favor it at all.
If it's going to be open to the public as much as possible, then I say, let's test it.
I don't even know why Assange is so concerned about extradition, because it's not like he's a free person.
I feel like it's his only path to freedom.
And if his only path to freedom would also give us, you know, American citizens the things we want to know, I feel like that's a win-win.
Does anybody see a problem with that?
What would be the problem with just putting it in court and letting us see how it plays out?
He might be abstained.
But doesn't he have that risk already?
I mean, would he be in more danger here than wherever he is?
I mean, anybody can get to him anywhere.
You've been yelling power chords at me.
I've been playing the power chords, but even the power chords, you need these two fingers to be further apart than a normal hand.
So, I hear what you're saying.
I was practicing my power chords yesterday.
Anyway. So, let's keep an eye on that.
Here's a funny, not a funny story, a horrible story.
I'm sorry. Did I say it was funny?
This is a tragic, horrible story.
About a nurse in Germany who gave 8,600 patients a saline shot when they thought they were getting a COVID vaccination.
So apparently this nurse was anti-vax, anti-COVID vax, and was giving people saline instead of the vaccination.
And so she got convicted, and she'll serve some time, I guess.
And here's the...
No, she won't serve time.
A suspended sentence or something.
I don't know. But she's got some kind of penalty.
But is there anything missing in the story?
Now, apparently, she admitted that she gave some saline injections, but then they thought, wait, it's probably more than some.
And then they started testing all the people who had been to her, and they found out that they didn't have antibodies for the vaccination.
So they determined there's 8,600 people who should have been vaccinated and weren't, and mostly they were over 70.
So it was actually the most vulnerable population.
Now, is there anything missing in the story?
Any dogs not barking?
Thank you. That's right.
Did anybody ask the 8,600 people how did it work out?
How'd it work out? Because you know what is conspicuously missing in a story about somebody who's in legal jeopardy?
What's conspicuously missing?
What was the cost or the outcome of the bad behavior?
We know 8,600 people got a shot, and then we can say for sure about the 8,600 people.
What can we say for sure?
They did not have vaccination complications.
We can say that for sure.
We know that the nurse reduced the risk of complications.
Now, don't you think they had an obligation to ask if anybody was worse off?
Did they have worse outcomes?
Did they get COVID and die?
I have a suspicion that the data does not support the prosecution.
Because if it did, and they actually talked to all 8,600 people, because I think they had to talk to the 8,600 people to test them for antibodies.
They had extended conversations, right?
So isn't that kind of conspicuously missing?
I'm just saying.
It's just not there. All right, another amazing story.
The news is just full of amazing stories today.
There's a whistleblower, Dr.
Huff, who worked in the Wuhan lab from 2014 to 2016, including being vice president at one point.
So he's a high-ranking Wuhan lab American who says, absolutely, the U.S. government is to blame for the transfer of dangerous biotech to the Chinese.
In other words, America is blaming China, China is blaming the U.S., and they were both fucking in on it.
That's what the whistleblower says.
They were in on it together.
Ouch. Now, have I told you that every time there's a conspiracy theory, lately it seems we're finding out it's exactly what you thought it was?
What's the worst thing you could have assumed about the Wuhan lab?
Is the worst thing you could assume that it was all China?
It was just China.
China did it and they're lying about it.
Is that the worst thing you could assume?
Because that's really bad.
That would be bad. Is the worst you could assume that it was really America and we were blaming China and mostly getting away with it?
That'd be bad. I mean, that'd be very, very bad.
But you know what would be worse than that?
If the United States and China were completely aware that it was both of us, and we just agreed to blame each other so that nobody was quite sure, I feel like it was the worst case scenario.
I don't know if it could be any worse.
What could be worse?
Now, let's back up a little bit.
Do you believe the whistleblower?
What is the credibility of the whistleblower?
It looks like his credentials are solid.
It looks like he was in the right place at the right time.
Roughly. 2016.
I don't know if that's the right time.
It looks credible to me.
But there is one knock against it.
It's a pretty big knock.
So there's one mark against his credibility.
What is it? What's the mark against his credibility?
Yeah, follow the money. Exactly.
He's writing a book. And...
So here's somebody who's allegedly an American citizen.
I say allegedly because he didn't act like one.
He didn't act like one.
If he waited until now to publish his fucking book for us to know what was going on with the pandemic, I don't trust him at all.
He has no credibility in my view.
If you're that much of a whore...
You're not credible.
He could be right. He could be right.
Like, I'm not saying he's wrong.
I'm saying that I wouldn't believe it because this fucking guy said it.
Because here's somebody who just threw the whole country under the bus to write a book.
Because we kind of needed to know that, if it's true.
So I would say credibility, low.
Low, unfortunately.
I'd love for his credibility to be high.
And I don't know if there's any other, you know, any other knock on his credibility.
I don't know about his background or his history.
But just that one thing, any time you hear that somebody saves their blockbuster whistleblower thing for the book, that's just a big hit on your credibility.
Yeah, that's a big hit.
So we'll wait on that.
I contend that one of the worst things that came out of World War II, aside from 60 million people dying, aside from the Holocaust, aside from all of that, there is a ripple effect from World War II that is really, really hurting us. And it's the fact that we can't make any decisions without comparing it to Hiller.
How good is our decision-making if we can't make any decisions without a Hitler analogy?
It's completely crippled.
We are permanently under PTSD because all we can see is Hitler everywhere.
It's just Hitler, Hitler, Hitler.
If you can't make any political argument without a Hitler analogy...
There's no critical thinking happening at all.
You're just Hitlerized.
You're so Hitlerized.
So that's like a permanent PTSD that society has.
And it really is hurting us.
Because we can't have anything like an even partially rational discussion.
If one side is saying, Hitler, Hitler, we'll get to more of that.
More of that later.
So Michael Schellenberger is the third independent journalist who got access to the Twitter files.
So now we've seen Matt Taibbi and Barry Weiss and now Michael Schellenberger.
I assume Musk was the one who personally selected or approved the journalists because they have something in common.
They're all people who at one point were associated with the left, who got a little frustrated with the arguments on the left, and though you would not call them Republicans, because they wouldn't call themselves Republicans, you could say, oh, here are three people that we know can see both sides of an argument.
That alone, if nothing else comes out of this Twitter stuff, if the only thing that comes out of this is that there were three independent journalists you could believe, And I say believe, not because they will get every fact right for the rest of their lives.
That's not a realistic expectation.
But you could believe them that they're not intending to lie.
They're not intending to lie.
They're people who have a history of intending to just let you know what's true.
That's very big. And I think it's bigger than the Twitter story by far.
Imagine if you will.
And it could be that the whole Substack situation is really positive.
Because it could create a virtual, independent journalism...
I guess it has. Virtual, independent journalism tool.
That the public might actually go to for some good information.
So something really good is developing there.
Anyway, so Schellenberger, who has my highest confidence for being an independent journalist, he was at task with only reporting for the few days, I think around right after January 6th.
And one of the big things we found is that A number of people were calling for Trump to be kicked off the platform, including Michelle Obama and I think the ADL and some others.
So there were calls for him to be kicked off.
So here are the people we know Twitter targeted, and you can help me fill in the blanks.
We know Twitter targeted Trump, Dan Bongino, The libs of TikTok.
James Wood. And who else?
Jordan? I didn't see that.
Oh, Charlie Kirk.
Charlie Kirk. Who else is confirmed?
Babylon Bee? Well, we know that, right?
Matt Gaetz? Is Matt Gaetz confirmed?
Roger Stone confirmed?
I haven't seen those confirmed.
Confirmed. Could you send me...
If there's anything that confirms other people, like Matt Gaetz and Stone, could you send that...
Oh, Breitbart is confirmed, right?
Breitbart's. MGT, is she confirmed?
I mean, there's things we saw in the public, but have we confirmed it from the Twitter files that they were targeted?
Okay. Oh, you'll send me Matt Gaetz?
Thank you. So...
So here's the thing. There's so many angles to this.
Let's take the Yoel Roth angle first.
As you know, Yoel Roth was in charge of who got banned on Twitter, and he seemed to be operating somewhat independently with at least one other executive, and maybe Jack Dorsey wasn't in the loop on some of this stuff.
So we know that there was stuff happening outside of Jack Dorsey's Direct control, or direct intervention or something, I guess.
So that much we know.
But it turns out that Joel Roth, when he was, I think, working on his PhD, wrote a paper, and I'm going to be very careful about how I talk about this, okay?
He wrote a paper about the app Grindr.
I don't know what the bigger topic was, but the part we know about it.
He talked about the app Grindr, which is for gay people to do gay hookups.
And he mentioned that there were underage people who were not legally allowed on the app, but they would sneak on.
So there were a lot of young people under 18 on the app.
In his paper, he asked the question, should we only be working on getting them off the app, Or is there a way to take into consideration that they're going to get on the app no matter what, and that maybe you should treat them in some way that's better for society?
Is there any positive way to make it better keeping underage people on a sex app?
Now, from a purely academic perspective, is that a fair question?
From a purely academic perspective, which is the context, is that a fair question?
Yes, it is. Of course it is.
It's a fair question.
Because the question is, how do you reduce harm to children?
And I don't think he had a conclusion.
I think he said, we have to at least be realistic and say they're already being harmed.
Is there anything you can do to help?
All right. My sound is good at my end, so if there's something happening, I can't control it.
So... All right, so...
Somebody researched that and found out that that was in his background.
And then Elon Musk actually tweeted it.
Elon Musk actually tweeted that it explains a lot...
It explains a lot that the guy in charge of who gets kicked off the system had written a paper questioning whether children should be on a sex app.
Now remember, Twitter was also being accused of not taking seriously enough the pedophiles that were active on Twitter.
So you see that this all ends up looking like the same thing.
So... I would like to point out that Elon Musk now holds the record for the most extreme firing of an employee I've ever seen.
Sometimes you just get fired.
Oh, we have to downsize.
I'm sorry. You'll have to go.
Bad enough. I mean, that's a bad day.
But imagine being fired, and then within a week, the person who fired you outs you on Twitter as pedophile-friendly.
That is more fired than anybody has ever been fired.
You can't get fired harder than that.
Now, let me very quickly say that there is no accusation that Yoel Roth was involved in any way with any underage promotion of kids or activity, right?
There is no, no, no evidence that he personally is friendly with Any pedo stuff.
I want to be as clear as possible.
I don't think he's been accused, and there's no evidence I've seen that would suggest it whatsoever.
You're worried, but that's a different subject.
But it does seem to be true that someone with a documented background of being, let's say, flexible with underage stuff...
Was in charge of making sure there wasn't any, or at least he was one of the people who could have been involved in getting rid of the pedo stuff on Twitter.
Now that's about as bad as you can, that's like the worst situation you can even imagine.
But the fact that Musk actually tweeted that out, That's the most aggressive firing I've ever seen in my life.
I've never seen anybody fired harder than that.
That's as fired as you can get.
Wow! So, here's a question.
Did Jack Dorsey lie to Congress?
I just watched the clip of it.
And he was asked if, let's see, what was the exact question?
Does Twitter, quote, try to censor conservative voices?
Does Twitter censor conservative voices?
And Jack said no.
And he was sitting right next to the person who was in charge of the censoring.
Is that a lie?
Well, what would be the evidence that Twitter censors conservatives?
What's the evidence we've seen so far?
We've seen Trump, Kirk, Bongino, and they're all Republicans, right?
Or at least conservatives.
True or false, 100% of the people we know have been targeted, that we know, just the ones we know, are all conservatives.
True? True, right?
Is it also true that each of them had a specific terms of service infraction or could be interpreted as an infraction?
Is that true or not? Berenson was not conservative, but he was certainly siding with them in this.
No? Yes?
False? So, here's the question.
In terms of a courtroom, if somebody says, I have ten examples of conservatives who were banned, but we used an excuse in each case, there was like a specific harm that we called out that these ten people were engaged in, so does that prove, if you know that those ten things are true, or even twenty, Whatever it is.
If you know that there are ten absolutely confirmed cases where people were shadow banned, does that mean that they had a policy of shadow banning conservatives?
If you knew those were all true, all ten of them.
And you knew that there was no example, not one example, of a Democrat being...
Unfortunately, it's just examples.
It's just examples.
And those examples could be explained another way just as easily.
So one explanation is that Twitter conspired and were consciously trying to suppress conservatives.
And everything that happened looks exactly like that, right?
I definitely would agree that what we've seen looks exactly like that's true, but suggestive of.
In other words, there's nothing that's counterfactual to it.
There's nothing that rules it out, and it certainly looks exactly like it.
But the evidence we have only supports that they acted that way, which is different than a policy.
And why would they act that way unless they had a policy?
Why would everybody act the same way unless there was a policy?
And the answer is more obvious than a policy, because they were all Democrats.
They just had the same worldview.
So when they looked for harm, they all saw it in the same place.
And when they looked for harm caused by Democrats, they just didn't see it.
So their job was to get rid of harm, so they got rid of the harm they could see, which to them was all a bunch of conservative stuff.
They did not get rid of the harm that they didn't see, because to them it didn't look harmful.
And so would that be considered Twitter having, let's say, a policy of discriminating against conservatives?
Because if Jack says, no, we don't have a policy, I don't see anything that says that's a lie.
Because no document has said, let's get these conservatives.
No person has testified that, yes, we were after conservatives.
So you have no testimony and no documents that would refute what Jack said in Congress.
There's no counterfactual.
The only evidence you have is not conclusive.
It's anecdotal.
Anecdotal evidence has no...
No legal value, really, unless there's just tons of it, and then you can make a case based on circumstantial evidence.
But this is not even close to that level.
This is one anecdote that's just repeated.
Now, imagine a jury trial.
Imagine you took just what you have now and you didn't learn anything else.
You took it to a jury. You said, hey, jury, we found all these cases of conservatives being suppressed and no cases of anybody else being suppressed.
So there's our case.
And then what does the jury say?
In their minds, they say, well, where's this information come from?
How do we know it's just ten conservatives?
Who told us?
Oh, three people who are identified as being friendly to the right told us that the left was discriminating.
That's how you know? Your source is only people on the right looked at things you haven't looked at and we can't see.
We don't know if they skipped anything.
We just know that they only told us about the people on the right, which is exactly what people who lean right would tell you.
You see that you can never get a conviction based on what you have now.
Right? Now, I'm definitely not telling you that I know whether Twitter did or did not collude or scheme to take down Democrats or take down Republicans.
I don't know. Certainly we've found anything's possible.
Like every other news story teaches this lesson.
You know those people you thought you could trust?
Eh, not so much.
That's like every news story.
Every news story is the same.
So, I'd like to talk to you about the bad arguments on my team.
My team is the following.
My team is anybody who thinks that Twitter did some things that were bad, at least in terms of the outcome, and would like to know more about it and thinks we need to be kind of aggressive in getting to the bottom of it.
That's my team. And my team also thinks that there are probably some bad things that happened.
But what I don't like is when people who agree with me on the big picture have arguments that are absurd.
So I'm going to talk about the people who agree with me that Twitter did a bad thing and we need to figure out how to stop it and know what happened.
Don't do the following arguments.
I don't like the argument that Jack lied to Congress because we don't have evidence of that.
We have evidence that he said things.
We have only evidence that he talked.
Evidence that somebody talked and said something you didn't think they should have said is not evidence of a crime.
We don't know why he knew, right?
Because that's important. What did Jack know?
Because there's plenty of evidence in the documentation that he was not brought into all of the decisions.
He was brought into the top ones, but not all of them.
So I don't like the argument that Jack lied unless you have some evidence.
And there's no evidence he lied.
It might be true, but no evidence has been presented.
So that's a weak argument.
Which could turn into a strong argument if we had different information, but with what we have.
How about this one?
People said, I noted that it appeared from the internal documentation that the people who worked at Twitter believed they were doing something good for the country.
Would you agree? Now, it's not your opinion, but from what we've seen, doesn't it look like they thought they were doing the right thing?
And then people said to me, Scott, Scott, Scott, oh, you are so in the wrong place on this.
It doesn't matter what they thought.
Why? Why doesn't it matter what they were thinking?
Why is it irrelevant that they thought they were doing the right thing?
Go ahead, say it.
Say it. Say it.
There you go.
Thank you. Hitler.
Because we're poisoned by Hitler analogies, we can't think of this correctly.
We don't have the capability to look at this situation in any rational way because we're all crippled.
We're all crippled by Hitler.
It's all we can see.
If all you see is Hitler in this situation, you're not putting any kind of critical thought on it.
You're just Hitler poisoned.
So anybody who brings up Hitler in any situations that's not literally, actually the Holocaust, they just have Hitler poisoning, and you should ignore everything they say.
It's just Hitler poisoning.
Now, some people said to me, Scott...
It doesn't matter that they had good intentions in their own mind, right?
It only matters how they acted.
Because of the Hitler argument.
Those Nazis thought they were doing maybe something good for the world.
So, just like Nazis, right?
Twitter employees, Nazis, exactly the same.
They thought they were doing something good, but you can't excuse them for that, can you?
Because I was told that people's intentions are irrelevant.
If what they do is evil, they must be held accountable for the evil.
Their internal thoughts are irrelevant to that, right?
Would everybody agree with that?
That it's what they do that matters.
It's not what they're thinking.
They're internal intentions. And would you agree that internal intentions don't have any role in the legal system?
Would you agree that the legal system does not care what your internal thinking is?
It only cares what you did. And that's why we treat self-defense the same as murder.
So if you kill somebody in self-defense, let's say you blow their head off, that's why they put you in jail For exactly the same amount as if you murdered them with premeditation.
Because your intention doesn't make any difference in the legal system.
It only matters that you killed somebody.
What? What?
Oh, you're saying that those are treated differently.
Oh, oh. So now you're changing your opinion that the intention of the act actually is completely determinative of how you're treated.
Huh. Please, don't tell me that the intention doesn't matter.
The intention is all that matters.
It's all that matters.
For understanding how to deal with it, how to fix it, whether or not there's any legal repercussions, the intention is all that matters.
It's like way, way the most important thing.
Because in all likelihood, In all likelihood, what we've found out so far is exactly what Jack Dorsey told you a year ago.
A year ago, Jack Dorsey told you, we have too many Democrats, and so we're probably acting like Democrats when we're making decisions.
I mean, I'm paraphrasing, but he said that directly, and I think probably more than once.
Even Jack Dorsey said, whoa, whoa, whoa, we've got too many lefties here, so we're acting like a lefty organization, when that was never the point of it.
Like, he didn't approve of it.
He used that as a criticism of his own entity, that it was too lefty.
Now, here are two possibilities to how everything you saw could happen.
One possibility. It was an explicit Twitter policy to suppress conservatives.
And that would fit everything you've seen.
Would you agree? 100% of what you've seen so far would be compatible with that theory.
That they were actually, literally, knowingly just suppressing opinions they didn't like.
Totally fits the facts.
Here's something else that fits the facts.
Nothing like that was happening, but they were all Democrats.
And so they just saw the world through a Democrat lens.
When they looked at Trump, they saw a monster.
When they looked at, I don't know, grooming, as you would say, grooming in schools, maybe they just saw progressive sexual education.
It didn't look dangerous to them.
Maybe when you saw Antifa, you saw a domestic terror group, Maybe they saw protesters for Black Lives Matter, like, you know, good people and a good cause.
Couldn't you get to the same place?
Wouldn't everything you've seen be explained just by having lots of Democrats there?
Couldn't you explain all of it with that?
Because you can, very easily.
There's no stretch, there's no spin, there's no pretzel logic.
It's just right down the middle.
How about everybody was a Democrat, and so they acted like Democrats?
Or it's a big old conspiracy, and they were secretly trying to change the country, but yet it didn't show up in any of their documentation, and there's not a single whistleblower.
Not a single whistleblower says, yeah, we talked about it, we were just trying to put down the conservatives.
Not one? There's not one whistleblower in all of Twitter.
Really? Not one whistleblower to say, oh yeah, we actually just talked about this privately, and it was just all about suppressing.
Not one. Now, maybe we get one.
Now, and I want to be as clear as possible.
Later when you tell me I'm wrong, if new information comes up, no, you're wrong again.
That would be you being wrong twice.
If new information comes out, then I might change my opinion.
Based on the new information.
That's not wrong. I'm telling you, we don't know what's going on because we don't have the information.
So don't act like you know when you don't know.
Right? So if later we know, then I'll say, oh yeah, now we know.
All right. All right.
And so we've not seen any direct evidence that Twitter was targeting conservatives.
We've seen anecdotes, which are very convincing, and could mean that they had said it directly, but we're short of that standard.
Let's see. And more to that point.
Um... What is your point of view on the following three things?
If you complain that the 2020 election looked rigged, are you trying to protect the public or destroy it?
The people who said 2020 was rigged, were they trying to protect the republic or destroy it?
Sort of a point of view, isn't it?
People on the right say they're protecting it, people on the left say they're destroying it.
How about if you were a January 6er and you protested, were you trying to overthrow the republic or were you trying to protect it?
Were you trying to overthrow the republic or protect it?
Conservatives would say protect.
Democrats would say overthrow.
And likewise, if you were Twitter, were you trying to protect the public or were you trying to rig an election?
If you were the Twitter employees, were you trying to protect the country or rig an election?
Both. Maybe both.
Yeah, maybe both.
Those are not really separable.
There's news that Trump turned down a prisoner swap for that arms dealer I talked about, Victor Bout, for just Paul Whelan.
So before the WNBA player was nabbed, Trump had the offer of the arms dealer for the ex-Marine, and he turned it down, according to John Bolton.
Is John Bolton an accurate source for Trump-related behind-the-scenes information?
No. No, he's not.
No. So there may be some context here that's missing.
Now, I would not be surprised if he turned down the deal.
But there's a big difference between that and...
You know, the simple version we're hearing.
There may be more to it.
So I don't know. Could be technically true, but missing some detail.
All right, here's some really interesting events.
You might know that Carrie Lake has filed a lawsuit about the midterms and her Arizona situation.
And part of her filing includes the claim...
That they got an expert on voting machines, and they specifically got an expert on these kinds of voting machines.
So Carrie Lake gets an expert on these kinds of voting machines, and the expert says that the mass problems they had with the voting machines on Election Day could not have been created unintentionally.
What? From a technical perspective, it couldn't have been an accident.
Now, that's one of those opinions that, you know, you could imagine another expert saying, oh yeah, it could be an accident, let me explain how.
So you could imagine there might be a counter to that.
But that's the claim.
Somebody with extensive knowledge of those specific machines says that exact problem could not be happening by accident.
That that can only happen by human intervention intentionally.
Now, of course, this is not proof.
This is just the evidence being offered up.
But here's what's interesting.
Rich Barris, who on Twitter goes by the People's Pundit, and he was very involved in the election irregularity claims, and he tweeted this, and I don't know if you could have, maybe you couldn't have done this a year ago, but he said the 2022 Arizona midterm elections were not conducted legitimately.
Now, keep in mind he said that on Twitter.
Could you say that on Twitter a year ago?
Could you? I feel like you would have been kicked off, right?
Kicked off of Twitter. But there it is.
But then he follows it up, and I think this gives it a little extra weight.
He says, I have no problem extending invites to publicly...
Debate me over the fact.
All fake gurus are welcome to apply.
A word of caution.
This is from Rich Barris.
He says, you're not as smart as you think you are, and I'm going to embarrass you.
That's a pretty gutsy claim, isn't it?
Now, how long have I been saying we need some kind of a national-level...
Debate show, a podcast or live stream, where outside of the government we can actually have a real debate without weird time limits where people just talk until the time's up.
And have actually maybe people fact-checking, like a real debate, where the point of it is not to win the debate, the point of it is to find out what's true.
Which would look different than a debate.
Debates are artificial contests that are not designed to tell you what's true.
It's an artificial contest.
What you want is something to help you know it's true.
So the debate would be sort of the surface level.
But below that, you need to have the experts and researchers sitting right there at the same time, and then when somebody makes a claim, they all start clacking away on their laptops, and then they go, okay, you made this following claim.
Here's a study that backs you.
Here's a study that debunks you.
Here's what's good and bad about those two studies.
Then we know something.
Right? Then we would know something.
But the people I don't want to see debate, or I just saw Newt Gingrich and Ann Coulter did some debate against some Democrats.
I don't want to see that.
Because as soon as you put Newt Gingrich or Ann Coulter, it's all about them.
Right? It's no longer about the issue.
It's about those two people.
You can't have that kind of person...
Trying to tell you what's true.
Because they're too identifiable with a position.
You want somebody who looks like they don't care which way it ends up.
Someone who legitimately says, you know, I'm just following the facts.
So wherever this lands, it lands.
And then we'll deal with it because I just want what's good for the country.
You want people like that.
People could actually change their mind in public.
You want somebody who's so intellectually honest that if they lost a debate in public, they would say it.
Like, right in front of you.
That would be a rare person.
A very rare person.
Oh, yeah, you just... Basically, you just wiped the floor with me.
Yeah, you won that debate.
Yep, that point you made, I had not considered, and that changes my mind.
Surely there are some people like that somewhere in the world.
It'd be good to see them debate.
So I would like to boost Rich Baris' offer, and I do think he knows enough that he'd be a good person to have the debate.
Now, I don't know him personally, but what I've been following suggests that he's fact-based.
So fact-based that I could imagine...
I don't know, but I could imagine that if he were in a debate and he lost, that he might actually just say it.
Oh, yeah. Did my best.
These claims looked like they were pretty suspicious, but now your argument makes sense, and I accept that.
I think he could do it.
Now, that's pretty optimistic, isn't it?
Do you think I could do it?
Do you think I could be in a debate in which I was really strongly held a position, but in the course of the debate, in public, could I change my mind if I got undebated?
Yes, I could. Yes, I could do that.
Yep. I could do that right in front of you.
And the reason I could do it is I've created a brand that allows it.
So I would not be going counter to my self-image or the image that you have of me if I changed my mind in public.
In fact, that would be on-brand, wouldn't it?
For me, that would be totally on-brand.
Alan Dershowitz, same thing.
I just saw his name in the comments.
If Alan Dershowitz did a public debate and somebody bested him in the debate, I believe he would say it.
And he would say it before the debate was over.
I think he'd say, you know what?
I came here honestly thinking I had the stronger argument.
After 60 minutes of hearing the other side, I actually changed my mind.
And I think you should consider that that was a superior argument.
Dershowitz could say that.
Do you know why? Because he's created a brand for himself where that's allowed.
Geraldo could do it too.
Geraldo could do that because he also has a brand where he can say, oh, I'm going to follow the information.
But do you notice how few people you could come up with that you would trust could change their mind right in front of you?
Very, very small number of people.
And the only reason they could...
It's because they've created the brand expectation that there are people who can follow the data wherever it goes.
Even at the risk of embarrassment and even at the risk of You know, personal, whatever.
I see Victor David Hansen being mentioned.
I'm going to question that one, not because of any criticism of him, but because I'm not aware of anything he's done that's counter to, let's say, the rights narrative.
If he has that background, then yes, you would add him to the list.
But I'm not aware of it.
Tim Pool? Somebody suggests, maybe.
I don't know. Offer to debate Trump on persuasion?
Well, I don't think he and I would debate anything.
You know, Greenwald is now...
Greenwald may have passed too far into the right-leaning part of the world.
It's been a long time since I saw Greenwald disagree with the right.
It's been a long time.
And while I have ultimate respect for Greenwald's reporting, even though I don't like him personally...
Which I think is important to say because I think that helps my credibility.
I don't like Greenwald personally because he once tried to slap me down on Twitter and I didn't think it was legitimate.
So I just have a personal grudge against him because he's basically a dick.
But the work that he does I think is so valuable for the country that I have ultimate respect for his professional work.
He just might be sort of a dick.
I'm pretty sure that's common to a lot of people.
Maybe even me.
Maybe even me.
Why do you believe assessment of who...
They're all subjective?
Well, it's not a question of who I believe.
It's a question of are there some people that you know could change their opinion in front of you?
And I think there are some people that you could know that with some certainty.
And I'm one of them. And I think Dershowitz is another.
You know, when you say Tim Pool, you're starting to get into, I don't know, I would like to think he would.
Like, I have a general positive feeling about Tim Pool, so I think maybe he would.
But I think that Dershowitz is a guarantee, and I think I'm a guarantee.
Because we've both done it.
We've both done it in public.
Tucker changed on Iraq.
Yeah, years later. Years later.
You know, that's an interesting one.
Could Tucker change his mind in real time?
He changed his mind in Iraq, but that seemed to be after the fact.
Could Joe Rogan?
Joe Rogan could.
Yeah, Joe Rogan could. Could Russell Brand?
Yes. Could Steve Crowder?
Hmm, there's an interesting one.
I don't know. I have no reason to think he couldn't, but that's different from saying there's evidence to suggest that he would.
That's a little bit different.
Because there are a number of people I would say, well, I have no reason to think they wouldn't change their mind, but they don't have any history of it that I'm aware of.
How about Jon Stewart?
Yeah. Yep, he could.
Jon Stewart could. Tulsi could, of course.
Yeah. Isn't it interesting, though?
I feel like we need almost a separate category for people who could change their mind.
Doesn't it seem like that's something useful?
Because if you listen to people who can't change their mind, what are you listening to?
You're not listening to anything useful.
You're listening to propaganda.
Yeah, the Weinsteins, two good examples.
The Weinsteins based on, I believe, just intellectual honesty.
I think they just have a higher principle for intellectual honesty, so I think they would go wherever the data went.
That's my impression.
Dr. Drew, same thing.
Dr. Drew, he has a history of being able to take a hit by not saying the popular thing.
So he's got a long history of going where he feels the data is going.
So that's a good one. Yeah.
All right. Well, I don't want to mention too many names.
And I see all of you clankers.
I do see your comments.
It's just not something I want to interact with.
But I do see your comments.
So if you thought you weren't being seen, I can tell you that you are being seen.
All right. Then Carrie Lake responded to Rich Barris saying he wanted to do a public debate.
She said, I'd pay to watch this debate.
Now, isn't that the thing?
I would pay to watch this debate.
I would pay to watch that debate.
I would pay actual money.
Ten bucks. But I'd definitely pay a dollar.
You don't think there's any podcaster who's willing to host a debate that people, probably a million people, would pay a dollar for?
To do, you know, two hours of work and you make a million dollars.
Somebody's saying that Sticks and Hammer clarified within 48 hours, so I should unblock him.
What clarification could there be?
If I think he's a dick, how do you clarify that?
I don't know. I'm not interested.
He didn't mean to insult me.
No, he meant to be condescending.
He wrote something which was clearly intended to be condescending.
Yeah, it takes one to know one.
Yeah, that's true.
It takes one to know one.
All right. So here's the thing.
It wasn't his first offense.
And when people speak to me in a condescending way, I have a right to take them out of my attention span forever.
It doesn't matter to me that he doesn't like it.
That's not really...
Be a man.
Be a man. All right, here's a good question.
Is it more manly just to make your decision and move on?
Or is it more manly to keep revisiting your decision?
Which is more manly?
I don't think anything's more manly.
Let me give you a little micro-lesson about something.
I think that maybe this applies.
How many of you have the following philosophy of life?
And I'll give you the alternative.
The first philosophy is once you've made a decision, you just move on.
And there are other people who make a decision, but it's never really made.
It's always revisited forever.
Maybe, maybe, maybe, maybe, right?
I take the decision and move on, and then when somebody says, you made a wrong decision and here's why, even if I believe them, I move on anyway.
I move on anyway.
And that's really hard to explain.
Other people do. And I'm not even sure if it's rational.
It's just that my experience of life is that moving forward is always better than not.
And that as soon as you're in your analysis paralysis, that's all bad.
But moving forward the wrong way can at least help you adjust.
If you run into a wall, you adjust.
But I always say, okay, we're done with that decision.
And it's really hard if you're making decisions with women, like a partner, because women will often say accurately, oh, new information has emerged.
Let's go re-look at this decision.
And then I say, I don't go backwards.
I'm going to make a new problem with my new decision, and then I'll fix that, because that's in the future.
But I'm not going to go back.
I just don't go backwards.
And boy, this is a relationship killer, let me tell you.
I don't recommend it to you at all.
It's a total relationship killer.
Because try to explain to somebody you shouldn't do something that's obviously right.
Well, you obviously made the wrong decision based on this new information.
Why in the world wouldn't you go back and rethink it?
Because I don't go backwards.
I just don't go backwards.
I'll go fix the new thing that I made worse, but I'm not going to go backwards.
Is that a good way to be?
I don't know. I really don't know.
You took a massive L... For...
what? Sounds like an excuse.
I wonder if we'll ever find the real story about the Hammer and Pelosi.
I think we do know the real story about that.
Pelosi. The part that everybody's confused about is not confusing at all.
Because they say that Pelosi answered the door, and the police didn't see any immediate problems, and that Pelosi let them in, and it was only then that the bad guy grabbed the hammer and hit Pelosi.
But isn't it obvious exactly what happened?
Pelosi was engaging the crazy guy in conversation to stall and, you know, to keep it as nonviolent as possible.
He had the hammer in his hand just in case, but he was clearly talking to the crazy guy like a friend.
And he wanted to maintain that feel to keep the violence low.
So when the police entered, he said, you know, my friend here.
You know, here's my friend, because they've been talking for a while now.
So he wanted to present him as a friend to keep the violence down.
He was my friend. And then when the crazy guy realized that he was going to be in trouble and that this was an arrest, not just a conversation, he went nuts on Pelosi for calling the police.
How is that not obvious?
Now, I'm not saying it's the true story, because anything could sound right and not be true, but it's the most obvious explanation.
Why would you reject the obvious explanation?
Yeah, that's the obvious explanation.
If there's more to it, well, that's the world we live in.
We wouldn't be that surprised.
Why do I have so many clankers here?
Is it because you're all mad that I blocked Stix and Hammer?
So the clankers are fans of Stix and Hammer, who I blocked the other day for being a dick.
And I think that...
Can we all agree that it doesn't matter?
Does anybody care who I block on Twitter?
And for what reason?
Because they're personal reasons.
I'm not trying to say that you should block him.
It was just a personal decision.
It was a very personal decision.
It has nothing to do with politics, nothing to do with his opinion.
It was just personal. All right.
That, ladies and gentlemen, brings us to the conclusion of the best live stream you've ever seen in your life.
I got less pushback than I was expecting.
I thought I'd get a lot more pushback on this one.
All right.
Narcissists.
Absolutely. Oh, you just reminded me.
So I responded, Dr.
Jordan Peterson responded to one of my tweets, and he was talking about anonymity on Twitter, and he asked some interesting questions about the anonymous people, whether they're good or bad in general.
But Peterson noted in his response to me, That there's research that shows that these anonymous social media users are high in the dark triad narcissist personality traits.
So you've really created an attractor for the worst people in society, and it attracted them just like it should have, and then they're acting exactly like you'd expect the worst people to act.
Now, I responded to him.
I don't know if he responded to my response.
I didn't see anyone.
But I responded to him because I thought it was funny that Jordan Peterson would be calling anybody a narcissist.
But I don't put him in that category without myself.
So in my response, I noted that the two of us were both peacocks.
So it's hard to say that the anonymous people are narcissists when the people in the conversation are Dr.
Jordan Peterson and me. Do you think Dr.
Jordan Peterson and me, do you think the two of us, Have the right to call somebody else a narcissist.
Of all the two people in the world, there couldn't be two more narcissistic people than us.
Like, we're the two peacockiest peacocks you've ever seen.
I mean, we're all about public attention for presumably doing good work.
At least that's the attempt.
I'm quick to point out, and I'm sure Dr.
Peterson would point out the same, that there are basically two major kinds of narcissists, and they're very different.
One kind likes to show off, but the best way to show off is to actually do something good.
Like, that's how I play it.
Like, I don't really... It wouldn't feed me to get credit for something I didn't do.
Because actually, that happens fairly often.
Fairly often, people will say, oh, you made this prediction correctly.
And I'll look at it and go, no, I didn't.
I never made that prediction, but thank you for giving me credit.
But it doesn't do anything for me.
Getting credit for something I didn't do happens to me all the time.
It's like a very irregular occurrence.
But when it's something I didn't do, it gives me nothing.
Like, there's no dopamine hit, just nothing.
It's like, oh, that's weird.
But if I get credit for something I actually did that helped a real person, it feels really good.
Yeah, I'm the most narcissistic, grandiose narcissist you could ever be.
But I think, you know, my non-medically trained brain says that Peterson is exactly like me in this one regard, you know, unlike the poor man's version.
But in this one regard, he clearly According to my personal impression, I can't read his mind, but it appears that he likes attention for doing things that are useful and good for people.
And why wouldn't he?
Wouldn't you? He can deliver, so he's in that position because he has the ability to do it.
But if you had the ability to do it, wouldn't you?
Wouldn't you? If you could do as much good as he does, Wouldn't you do it?
And wouldn't you do it as publicly as possible?
And wouldn't you enjoy it if somebody said, hey, you did something good for me?
Of course you would. And my understanding is that makes us both narcissists.
But that's a different kind than the dark triad narcissist.
So the other kind is almost all bad.
No, it's all bad. Not almost.
It's just all bad. So, you've got to keep your narcissist straight.
And so I think my comment was a little unfair, because I was conflating the two kinds of narcissists.
But it still struck me as funny.
Who is more powerful, Carrie Lake or Mike Sertovich?
Is that a fair question?
Who is more powerful?
What you mean is who's more persuasive, right?
Who has better persuasion abilities?
I think they're both tens. They're probably both tens.
10 out of 10.
All right.
Were you bullied as a child?
Me? Who wasn't bullied as a child?
Is there anybody who wasn't bullied as a child?
Is that even a thing?
You? Oh, yeah, somebody who's really big.
If you're very large and you're male, maybe you weren't bullied.
That's true. But even then, the older kids would bully you.
You were not? I had a few bullies, but things didn't work out for them.
Yeah. So my bully narrative is that I had a few, but I solved them both with violence.
Violence solves a lot of problems.
Violence is very successful.
In the old days, remember the old way that you were taught to deal with bullies?
Is to attack them.
So I just physically attacked them and hurt them.
And then they never bothered me again.
But the key to attacking a bully is you've got to make sure that the next time they know you're going to kill them.
You can't just hurt them, because then they might just want to hurt you back.
So you have to hurt them and tell them that's just the appetizer.
Well, there's the appetizer.
If you want the full meal, I'll come back.
So if you don't do that part, it doesn't work.
So you've got to really sell that part hard.
So once you have them down and you're shoving grass in their mouth, that's when you tell them you'll come back.
As I was making one of my bullies eat grass in front of the rest of the class, as I was sitting on his chest, shoving it down his throat, I reminded him that I would come back.
No Elon mentions.
I did mention him. I mentioned him in the reference to Yoel.
All right. Ladies and gentlemen.
Yeah, Fauci just bores me.
There's nothing to say about Fauci except, he said X. We think he lied.
You know, just over and over again.
That's the whole story of Fauci.
He said something.
We think he knew it was a lie.
It's just that, over and over again.
It's just one story.
Just change the variables, and it's the same story, over and over again.
All right. Everyone clapped, I bet, when you beat your bullies.
No, I don't think they really cared.
They were doing their own thing.
It just happened to be a busy place.
It wasn't that they all crowded around.
It just wasn't in front of enough people that there were witnesses.
The real story about Fauci is his terrifying virility.
LAUGHTER His terrifying virility.
That's pretty good. All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, that's all for YouTube.
I'm going to talk to the local subscribers privately here.
