Episode 1266 Scott Adams: GameStop, China, and How to Lie to the Public

Date: 2021-01-28 | Duration: 58:12

Topics

Find my “extra” content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com

Rough Transcript

This is an auto-generated transcript and may contain errors.

Transcript

---

• John Kerry’s solution for Pipeline job losses

• GameStop, what happened and why

• Fake News demonizing technique

• The acceptable narrative and not getting banned

• China controlling US media, controlling Washington?

• Hunting conservatives: Andy Ngo flees America

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.
---
[0:07]

hey everybody come on in it's time yeah it's time for coffee with scott adams is it still the best time of the day yeah yep every single time some of you are prepared i know you are and if you're really prepared what do you have with you well you probably have a cup of mug or glass maybe a tanker jealous or steiner canteen sugar flask a vessel of any kind fill it with your favorite liquid i like coffee join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day the thing that makes everything better it's called the simultaneous sip and even if you have a tiny little hotel cup still going to be awesome go
so i'm in tahiti at the moment which is a stopover from bora bora it's the big island you go to for your main flights back home but i also have to get a

[1:09]

back home but i also have to get a corona virus covet test this morning before i can fly so am i concerned that i can get a kova test in tahiti and actually get a result before i get on my plane i'm a little concerned about that yes i am
am but the worst case scenario is i have to stay in t for another day so wouldn't be the worst thing um let's talk about all the news are you ready got lots of it got lots of good stuff it's a it's a fun news day and i'm going to start a new segment i'm going to call the fake news news it's news about the fake news because the fake news has covered the fake news i don't need to cover that i'll just cover the fake news is news for example uh apparently there's a gentleman who's been arrested uh i don't know if he's been arrested if he's being charged or something as an array an iranian

[2:10]

or something as an array an iranian agent who apparently has contributed opinion pieces to the new york times that's right an unregistered agent of iran has written opinion pieces in the new york times now do you say to yourself uh new york times how can they be so whatever they are to allow some unregistered agent of a foreign country to get you know get through and be putting opinion bases in their in their in their publication i have a feeling that this is so common that probably almost every news organization has been at least a little bit touched by this sort of thing i feel as if
if you know china and iran and russia etc they probably all have journalists don't you think you know either directly or by influence or
or people who lean their direction just get the kind of right kind of jobs and they become

[3:12]

right kind of jobs and they become they become the writers so i don't know that this is unusual i would expect that iran and lots of other countries would have people they influence who in turn influence you and you wouldn't necessarily know about it until one of them gets caught and it's a and it's a headline so unfortunately i think this is more normal than not normal and when you're reading your fake news one of the questions you could ask yourself is this hey is that article being written by an enemy of my country you don't know you just don't know but you have to at least at least consider the possibility that the person writing the the article is literally the enemy of your country that's a real thing and it's common enough i think that you should sort of have that little program running in the back your head hey is this a real opinion or is this an enemy of my country
here's some more fake news news about fake news

[4:12]

fake news so john kerry was uh asked about uh
i i can't think of john kerry without thinking of a tree he reminds me of an old growth tree so much that that's all i say i've told you before that i can't see people the same way if i ever see their animal because most people look like some kind of animal you don't realize it until till the idea occurs to you and like uh that person looks a little bit like a i don't know a horse i think and then you can never see anything else except that person looks like a horse well john kerry i just see a tree and so that's all i can see when i when i see a talking tree
and by the way i'm sure there's i'm sure there's something that i remind you of this yeah groot i am groot um so he was saying in response to the question about

[5:13]

question about uh people in the oil industry who might lose their jobs pretty big deal right well the energy business in this country is a giant industry critical for national success and if we go green and try to keep the oil in the ground as they say and the gas in the ground i suppose it's a big deal and it could have big employment impacts so what did john kerry say about the people who would lose their jobs if the oil industry gets squeezed he said quote what president biden wants to do is make sure that those folks have better choices that they can be the people to go work to make solar panels
what did he really say that in public john kerry really said that the people in the energy business would lose their jobs they can go make solar panels there are a few problems with that

[6:15]

there are a few problems with that number one when when does that solar panel make it kick in same day they lose their job or would it take years to build an industry they could employ as many people as have been lost to it could you have an american solar panel manufacturing industry that would ever be price competitive with making them overseas there's a reason it's made overseas we don't know how to do it we don't know how to do it inexpensively compared to where they where it could be done somewhere else so is there going to be a domestic solar panel industry when they can't possibly make them in a way that they can make a profit now maybe and i'd like to think this is true automation will make it possible to do that and be competitive with with china because if china needs robots to make stuff and we need robots to make stuff it ends up being about the same price

[7:16]

it ends up being about the same price it's only when people are making stuff that they get the they get the big advantage so maybe we can make uh solar panels cheaply enough but if we make them with robots that's also not labor right the only way we can compete on price and that's the only way the green new deal energy stuff will work is if it's economically competitive only way you can do it is without labor i think you know just economically it makes sense i don't know how you can do it
it with labor when our labor is more expensive than other countries so that's the first problem there's a timing problem at but it's not really the same people that's the problem do you think that the oil industry people who get fired are living in the place where the solar the solar factory will be do you think the people in pennsylvania will say if they lose their job do you think they're going to say oh good

[8:17]

they're going to say oh good pack up the car we're going to go live in i don't know sunny someplace else and make solar panels well some will but here's the thing that makes it fake news and i'm sure that cnn for example will never say what i'm saying that is that it is true that they might create new jobs with this green technology at the same time it's true that there will be jobs lost in the more traditional older energy companies but what he's not telling you is that the people who get the new jobs will be different people that feels really important to the story right hey a million people will lose their job but don't worry there will be a million new jobs four other people the people who are going to lose their jobs still have a problem that you know unless that solar panel factory springs up the same day they lose their job and they have the right kind of skills and

[9:19]

they have the right kind of skills and it pays pays the right amount of money i mean there is a lot of ifs in this idea and so what makes it a fake news is that leadership is all about tough choices right now is it a correct but tough choice to move the economy toward a more of a green green industry hard to know hard to know in the long run
run of course we need to get there but it's a question of timing and you know do you do it do you do it economically or do you rush et cetera so there are very smart people um i think mark cuban would be an example of a very smart person who would say that the green new technologies are are really good they're going to be good for the economy good for jobs etc i hope i'm characterizing his opinion correctly that the green new energy business could be quite

[10:19]

green new energy business could be quite a hopping thing
but if it's different people and it doesn't happen at the same time shouldn't you tell the public that shouldn't that be one of the things you say look public i know this isn't going to be easy but we have these reasons we want to do this we think it's good in the long run for the country
but it's going to take some sacrifice by this group this other group will get the benefits they'll get jobs over here and this state this state will lose jobs and
and nothing's going to happen for you you're just going to lose jobs but this other state will do great because they're going to build some build some green factories that would be honest honest leadership would be it's going to hurt but some other people will do better and on average that's where we need to be as a country in the long run so there's just no way around it that

[11:19]

so there's just no way around it that would be leadership but they can't say that because they don't want to lose a state so they have to lie lie and say that those people losing jobs i'll just get other jobs all right you're all watching the the news about gamestop right uh how many of you understand that story so the the basic story that a bunch of individuals on reddit got together and decided to massively collectively buy stock in this one company called gamestop now this is having the effect of uh being a as you can see in the comments there's uh lots of yeses and lots of yeses wow i'm actually quite kind of impressed at the quality of this audience and i mean that i don't know how many general audiences would have so many people i'm looking at the comments and most of you say you understand understand that story it's kind of impressive actually jesus

[12:22]

it's kind of impressive actually jesus look at look at the look at the number of people in the comments who say they actually understand that story it's a complicated story i thought i was gonna have to explain it to you wow wow i think some of the smartest people in the internet are on this uh or on this live stream now this is amazing i'm really very impressed i suppose it's the people who understand it we're going to comment but but even still i'm so i'm surprised but let me give you the basic idea for if anybody doesn't know how this works so there are big companies called hedge funds who try to make money by driving down the price of a stock this is not good for the company that owns that stock because people are just playing manipulating their stock the way they would do that is they would buy a contract if you will that says they will make money if the stock goes down now if you see that a bunch of smart investors with a lot of money have just made big bets that a stock will go down

[13:22]

will go down what are you going to do if all the smart people just made giant bets the stock is going to go down and you own that stock you want to get the hell out of there right because it's going down not only are they telling you it's going to go down but they make it to go down that's that's the manipulative part right there might be some stories that come out about some bad things happening at the company they may be true they may be
be more opinion you don't know but the big hedge funds have the power to drive down the price of a stock which does nothing for you does nothing for the company now in some cases they would argue that they're just adding efficiency and they're they're driving down the price of a stock that deserves to be driven down in other words they're not destroying good companies they're destroying companies that have some issues but keep in mind they've gone after tesla imagine if they drew they had driven tesla and a business that was a possibility i think i don't

[14:23]

that was a possibility i think i don't know if they had that much power but they did try to drive them the price of tesla at one point which makes uh elon musk not their friends let me just say that elon musk is enjoying watching the short sellers get taken at least that's the reporting so here's how it works if i can explain this easily um if you let's say you own some stock in
in a company called gamestop and i can go to you and i can say hey i would like to borrow your stock for x amount of time specific amount of time and at the end of that i will give you your stock back and you would say why would i let you borrow my stock why the hell would i do that and there are two reasons one is i'll give you a fee for borrowing it you could think of it like interest but it's not it's like a fee for borrowing it for a while and so you'd say okay i get a fee but what about when you give it back to me

[15:24]

me that stock might not be worth the same amount i'll give you 100 shares and when you give 100 shares back to me are they still worth something because the stock went down in the meantime i got a little fee and that's cool but when you gave me my stock back it wasn't worth anything it went down to you know a dollar or something so you would have lost as the person who let me borrow your stock you would be a loser in that case why would you do it then why would you ever let me borrow your stock well the only reason you do it is that you think the stock is going to go up so you think that when i give that stock back to you it'll be worth more than when you got when you when it was first borrowed and enough more that you come out ahead not only did i get a fee for letting you borrow it but when you gave it back it was worth more than i gave it to you good deal right so you always have to have somebody who thinks something's going up and somebody who thinks it's going down to make a trade one of them is right and one of them's wrong that's how the stock

[16:25]

one of them's wrong that's how the stock market works but you need somebody on both sides right so that's why somebody would lend you stock they think it's going in the other direction so let's say you're you're a hedge fund and you've you've done one of these deals and you say i'm going to give this stock back to this guy it's just 100 shares of stock but the people that read it get together they say we don't have a lot of money individually we're just people but if we all get together and buy this stock like crazy the hedge funds don't have a choice later of buying the stock at your higher price and therefore you make a profit because there they have a contract that says on this specific date i have to go get stock that i've already sold by the way i borrowed your stock but as soon as i borrowed it i sold it so as soon as you lend your stock to me you don't have it anymore but neither do i
i i borrowed it and sold it all i have is

[17:25]

i borrowed it and sold it all i have is cash so at the end of that contract period all i have is cash but i owe you a stock you know you've got to get your 100 shares back so i have to go buy those at the
the in the market but the reddit people drove up the price now i can't afford to buy them i don't have enough money i can't get enough money there's nothing i can do but i owe this gigantic amount of money because the redditors drove up the stock price how do i give you back the money the shares i borrowed i can't afford them so i go on a business so you i go bankrupt at least maybe not out of business ultimately but uh so the redditors are intentionally driving out of business the hedge funds because they did the math or somebody did and figured that they could buy enough collectively to actually bankrupt gigantic hedge funds which they don't really feel are so good for the country and it's this massive shift in power

[18:27]

it's this massive shift in power because the the retail small investors found out hey if we band together and use these communication tools we can be as powerful or more powerful than the hedge funds and we can just drive them out of business and make a profit too now if you're listening to this and say to yourself hey i think i just found a way to make some easy money i'm going to buy me some gamestop stuff and that stuff's going to keep on going up and i'll just make a quick quick profit a lot of people did that a lot of people got in low probably sold high made a ton of money with almost no time going by but don't assume that because it happened to you there should be in the long run about as many losers as winners right because it always has to be a buyer always has to be a seller otherwise there's no transaction so in the long run you're going to get i don't think this is exactly true but something closer to as many winners as

[19:29]

something closer to as many winners as losers so if you want to flip a coin and bet your entire uh net worth on it i would advise against it sort of a coin flip it's not it's not a guaranteed it's not it's not safe and if the coin flip doesn't go your way it's not that you didn't make money let's say you lost it all right you just lost it so super risky if you're trying to figure out how risky it is super risky but if you have lots of people putting in small amounts that wouldn't make a difference to their life if they lost them you know hundreds of thousands of people putting in a thousand dollars a piece say
say wouldn't change their life if they lost them so i think this is really it's not a question of what's right or wrong good or bad we do see that the robin hood app apparently stopped letting people buy the stock they can sell it but not buy it which is good for the hedge funds but not good for the retail people so let's see how much power the hedge

[20:30]

so let's see how much power the hedge funds have because hedge funds are still trying to still trying to uh you know manipulate it in their direction so it's a battle of wills at the moment we don't know which way it's going to end but it's an interesting story and apparently it shows some hatred for the big money people that is bubbling into the you know bubbling up from the public in a way that we've never seen before all right um i'm still getting uh still getting weird comments about my tweet in which i asked if it's too late to impeach george washington for slavery and i'm watching a technique by the the fake news industry uh to marginalize me as as a public commenter because i don't comment exactly the way they would like and and i've seen the technique before so here's the technique and it this is how
how trump uh trump was the victim of this

[21:31]

trump uh trump was the victim of this once and now uh it's happening to me in a smaller way do you remember when trump made his john mccain statement uh they were talking about john mccain being a hero and i think it was when trump was running for office and he said i prefer people who don't get caught now if you don't know that was a joke then it looks very disrespectful to anybody who's uh served but if you do know it's a joke well it's not really disrespect respectful it's just a joke all right and it was a funny joke and they stop everything stop everything hold on hold on
i just had to show you what it looks like out my window right now
that's crazy take a look at that if you're listening on podcast i'll i'll get back to our schedule

[22:32]

i'll i'll get back to our schedule program but the uh the scenery here is just a joke this it's just crazy all right
back to john mccain i know that's what you really want to talk about so what the what the fake media does is they they will misinterpret somebody say trump and then i'm going to tell you how they do it to me they'll start by misinterpreting something that was clearly a joke and they turned it into oh it's a disrespectful thing if they repeat their their misinterpretation enough the misinterpretation becomes the truth at least in terms of the public and the public says oh yeah it wasn't a joke it was being disrespectful so once they've they've sold you on the fake news that that trump was being disrespectful to service people which is of course not what was happening he was just mocking mccain um
then that becomes the truth and then they mock you for it and then the

[23:33]

they mock you for it and then the mocking is of the thing that never happened right so the thing that trump would be mocked for is the thing that didn't happen likewise when i did my tweet about uh you know maybe we should think about impeaching george washington the first thing they do is misinterpret it as not a joke that's a joke it's a joke do you think that i really want to impeach george washington no now the second thing they do is even if they recognize it as a joke they you know even a joke has a political point to it and this one does now the point i'm making is that it would be a complete waste of the public's time and the government's time to impeach trump because he's not going to run for office again if you think he if you think that's going to happen or at least if he ran he wouldn't he wouldn't have a chance of winning at this point if you're worried about it that's kind of tds because trump wouldn't have enough support from republicans

[24:34]

support from republicans to win again right and you need at least your own team you can't win without your own team and he would he would have lots of support but not enough so i think trump would know somebody still thinks he would win he wouldn't win you wouldn't have any chance if he ran again i understand that you think you think that's not the case but my point which is my opinion is he has the same odds of winning and being in office again as george washington meaning none right so my point is it's a waste of time because neither of them will ever be you know president again but instead of that obvious point which i thought was obvious when i made it the uh the democrats who are criticizing me
me have decided to interpret it as me not understanding that the issue of slavery was very different from the issue of inciting people to do whatever they claim trump did in the

[25:34]

whatever they claim trump did in the capital now that's the case of not understanding how analogies and jokes work or at least not understand the point in this case but since they can repeat that forever forever now if if i do something else that they don't like they will say and he thought that slavery was the same as yeah so they'll create a story in which i'm so dumb that i made this tweet but it will be based on misinterpreting a simple point that it's a waste of time to impeach anybody after they're out of office and not gonna run again uh so that's that's the fake news play they'll create a fake narrative and that will be the thing that you'll have to answer for the rest of your life and they can use that against you at any future time
um i'm actually surprised there's so many people who think trump could win uh and i don't think there's even the slightest chance you would run for a lesser office such as governor or senator you don't go

[26:36]

such as governor or senator you don't go from president to a lesser office i mean you could i just don't think that's just not anything anybody would do
do um somebody says why purposely try to be misinterpreted well uh sometimes i do that for fun and this was a case where i was pretty sure people would misinterpret it and i thought it would be funny and it was but they'll use it against me the trouble is that it just won't have that much effect in my case
here's uh here's a little thing you should know about so some academics from harvard duke and johns hopkins got together pretty smart people right if they're academics at those schools harvard duke and john hopson john johns hopkins pretty smart people got together and released the paper in which they claim that the coveted lockdowns will result in a staggering 1 million

[27:37]

in a staggering 1 million excess deaths over the next decade and a half due to increased problems with health and health related issues because of
of unemployment so what they've done is they say we know that unemployment leads to you know x percent of problems the coronave virus will cause more unemployment and therefore you can you can just figure out how much that will affect things here's my problem with that doesn't that sound like something you want to believe right when you heard this you said yes finally i got science on my side right but was it science was that science or was that an economic kind of projection except with except economics it's more of an employment
estimate and then related to health care and how people will will thrive or not

[28:39]

and how people will will thrive or not under different employment scenarios here's my problem when you hear a new paper came out that exactly agrees with what you want it to say that's when you should really crank up your skepticism because the best way that you can be fooled is by somebody telling you that science agreed with you but you got to know that science is wrong in this kind of stuff maybe more often than right when it comes to financial predictions does this sound familiar in any way all right it might sound like my criticisms of climate change economic predictions if you've watched me for a while you know that i i don't argue with the science part of climate change because what do i know i'm not a scientist and their arguments seem to have lots of backing from lots of different directions no matter how they slice it it looks like co2 added to the atmosphere should cause warming all things being

[29:40]

should cause warming all things being equal but when they take that which i can't judge and don't have any reason to think it's false
they take it to an economic projection over 80 years then it just is ridiculous because nobody can do that that's not a real thing that's like a horoscope reading tea leaves nobody can make an 80-year economic prediction it's just not a thing but they do anyway to scare you into action today now the reason that economic projection doesn't make sense for 80 years is because there'll be lots of innovation and surprises you know nobody saw the coronavirus coming a lot of surprises could be wars could be
be meteors could be we discover gold and you know how to make gold then of plastic i don't know anything could happen in 80 years the same is the same is true of this economic prediction if you're willing to go with me on the fact that you can't predict climate change economics which could be

[30:41]

climate change economics which could be bad or could be good they're just not predictable you just can't predict that stuff it should be the same analysis for this do you think people can really no matter how smart they are because these are smart people working in the right fields it looks like and would you trust them they're very smart i believe they're almost certainly trying to tell you the truth probably credible professionals should you believe that there'll be a million excess deaths for because of the shutdowns and grotovirus when it agrees with what you wanted to agree with that's the problem isn't it it's the same problem with the economic predictions for climate change the people who want that to be true so that their argument is true they're going to see it as true um somebody says twitter is ruining conservatives what do you say scott well i don't know that they're ruining conservatives uh i would have to i think i would have

[31:44]

uh i would have to i think i would have to see some examples of conservatives being banned from a social media platform for saying things that are true you know if you get banned for being reasonable that would be a problem but if you get banned for things that uh you know a reasonable person could say is hate speech i don't know if i can defend that if you get banned for saying things that um are clearly not true you have some explaining to do but the real problem of course is that it's not it's not uh it's not applied equally right so the people who get to decide what is true we'll say that when conservatives say something that they don't think is true they have to go away uh whereas if if cnn tells you the fine people hoax was real or that the bleach drinking hoax was real or or russia collusion was real and it turns out it's not that nobody

[32:46]

and it turns out it's not that nobody gets penalized for that stuff adam schiff no penalty for lying to the public for for years um somebody says why did peter navarro get kicked off i don't know the specifics i know for example in the carpe duncan situation i think that was a copyright issue wasn't it which is just its own its own issue and peter navarro if he got kicked off i don't know the situation people are telling me he's banned i would assume he made some claim about the
the election integrity and the powers that be have decided that questioning the elect the election is too risky so where they might allow something to remain on the internet that is known to be false as long as it's harmless but that one could be you know potentially uh deadly if you get that one wrong so should people be banned for saying that the election was stolen

[33:48]

the election was stolen i don't think so i don't think so um but you don't have to say that let me tell you what i said recently give you give you a better way to
to approach this um which i'm pretty sure i wrote down here
do oh here it is so here's something i tweeted which has not gotten me banned yet this is a technique which i've taught you before which is you take people's opinion that you believe is absurd and you agree with it and then you amplify it so agree and amplify so instead of saying i think this election was stolen which for which there is no court approved proof and then getting banned by by social media here's what i say i agree with i agree with the narrative but watch the way i do it

[34:49]

narrative but watch the way i do it so here's me agreeing with the narrative and i tweeted yesterday in my ongoing effort to avoid being cancelled so i've set the stage so people know that whatever comes is because i'm avoiding being cancelled and then i say i hereby agree that an absence of court approved proof of election fraud is proof it did not happen courts are the ideal place for those challenges software systems are unhackable and full election transparency already exists
what did my critics say when i said that because i just described the the narrative that's acceptable but because i'm associated with you know a political side whether whether i think that or not i'm associated with it people are going to need to argue it which part of this hundred dollars per word removal i see where you're going with that but that's a different topic um

[35:54]

let me read the the pieces of this again people call this sarcasm or satire let me see if you can find any satire or exaggeration or sarcasm i'll read the parts again and here's the clever part there isn't any there's there's no there's no hyperbole in here there's no exaggeration there's no satire i literally wrote the mainstream narrative down first part that i said i agree that an absence of court approved proof of election fraud is proof it did not happen now as you know absence of proof is not logically proof of absence but that is the narrative it's what george stephanopoulos says it's what cnn says every day it's what msnbc says every day it's what the biden administration says every day i'm agreeing with them that the lack of proof is proof that it doesn't exist now the fact that that is a lot a famous

[36:55]

now the fact that that is a lot a famous logical impossibility not a possibility a logical fallacy this isn't my fault it isn't up to me to defend having an opinion which is a logical fallacy and like a famous one it's not even a it's not even a remote one that not too many people have heard about it's like one of the most famous logical fallacies that an absence of proof is not proof that there is nothing there so i simply stated the exact belief that's coming from every direction with no exaggeration are you with me so far you're with me so far that there's no exaggeration in that so is that sarcasm is that a satire it's literally what they're saying if i'd if i had extended it that would be satire if i had made it something it wasn't really meant to be sarcasm maybe but this is actually precisely what it is

[37:55]

precisely what it is there's no deviation from what i said from the actual official narrative that a logical fallacy is the policy of of the government and social media literally that's the policy about the second part courts are the ideal place for these challenges the questions about fraud now do you believe that courts are the ideal place for this well you could argue that the court said we don't have a jurisdiction so that would be a variable the courts have said uh it's too late to make this challenge in some cases they've said that there's a technical problem in some cases but that's you i mean that might be something you say but not me i agree with the mainstream narrative that the courts are not just a good place for that the courts are not just the only option that anybody has

[38:56]

that anybody has it's way better than that because the courts have shown that there's no fraud and if they can do something that powerful to show there's no fraud without even looking at the evidence they're ideal because see how inefficient it would be to have a court case and people would present evidence and it takes months and you need a jury and it's very expensive well that's not very ideal is it that's not ideal the ideal is they don't even have to look at the evidence and they can still conclude with certainty that there's no fraud that's ideal it's ideal so if i agree with the narrative that the courts they got this that you couldn't even come up with a better place to take these core challenges it's ideal and you know that the you're thinking yourself scott they don't think it's ideal

[39:59]

scott they don't think it's ideal they think at this part i'm not making up
up that the courts have settled it they don't say the courts have mostly settled it they don't say the courts have given us an indication that everything's all right they say unambiguously completely the courts have have decided on this it's done if that's true and they decided on all of this without even having actual cases you know where evidence is shown and all that stuff if they did all that without the expense of
of the evidence that's ideal how can you get better than that somebody says the courts did not rule how does that matter if they're the ideal place and they said i'm not going to rule on that then that's all you need to know because it was done at the ideal place so i'm just agreeing with the official narrative that courts are ideal for that

[41:00]

now you might say to yourself but even your critics reading that would say well not really ideal maybe it's just the only option you have but that's not their story i'm just agreeing with their own narrative then i also said that software systems are unhackable that is their position because there's lots of software involved in the accounting et cetera there's no um there's no belief that they were hacked there's no evidence of that or there's no proof of it let's say there's no court approved president there's no court let's say agreed evidence or proof that any software was corrupted so i want to make sure i don't get sued by dominion or anybody who's suing somebody personally i have no information that would lead me to conclude that any software system have been corrupted

[42:02]

but i would go i would agree with my critics here as i am quite aggressively that we also know it can't be hacked in the case of the election software how do we know that it can't be hacked we know that because the people who are happy with the outcome tell us there's nothing to look at if there's nothing to check no reason to check what do you conclude can you conclude that you know everything's fine without checking well only if you know that they can't be hacked you would have to know it can't be hacked or at least can be hacked without being detected you would have to know it can't be hacked and is therefore unhackable to be happy with not checking i don't see how you could conclude anything else you would have to assume that software systems at least some of them are unhackable and that this might be one of them

[43:03]

and you would have to assume also that the election had full transparency because if there were if any transparency problems existed then the people asking for audits and more transparency would be right because everybody wants more transparency in an election right who would argue against it so i'm just agreeing with it the elections must have already complete transparency because otherwise any reasonable person would say oh maybe we need a little more transparency but they don't so
find any part of this in which i'm departing from the mainstream narrative i don't think i am i think they literally believe an absence of court-approved uh proof is proof it doesn't exist i think they actually believe the courts were the ideal place for these challenges i think they actually believe that at least the election software was unhackable which which you would have to generalize if there's any software that's unhackable it's all unhackable right because unless

[44:06]

it's all unhackable right because unless they invented something that nobody else has such as a way to keep insiders from ever taking a bribe then why doesn't everybody else use it unless they're just making mistakes they should use the same unhackable technology that the that the elections use if it exists and i and i believe it exists because i'm told it does um and they must also believe there's full transparency in the election otherwise they wouldn't be arguing and saying that everything's fine so that would be an example of aggressive agreeing with people and how much pushback do you think i got on that
tweet it's hard to push back on it isn't it the only way you can push back on that tweet is by disagreeing with your own opinion because i agreed with your opinion everything i said agreed with your opinion so if if it looks stupid to you i don't see

[45:06]

if it looks stupid to you i don't see how that's my problem if i agree with you and you and my agreeing with you look stupid maybe you should have re-thought your opinion in the first place before you got me to agree with you all right
um reuters is reporting that enrique tario the leader of the proud boys which at least reuters calls an extremist group makes you wonder what's the definition of an extremist group is there is there a definition of that or can the news just tell you somebody is you know are democrats an extremist group is aoc an extremist for wanting to radically change the economy with a green new deal i don't is an extremist always somebody who has bad intentions what's what's it mean anyway so they they just label the group extremists now i'm not supporting the group or

[46:06]

now i'm not supporting the group or denying the group or disavowing them i feel like they got some they've got some good things but uh a lot of problem things with the proud boys so it's not it's not to me to defend them uh but you know you can condem things they do which is different from condemning all the members all right and by the way i would apply the same standard to every group you know there's got to be some good people in antifa probably there's probably at least one person in antifa who's not a complete loser so anyway he's uh he's being accused of being an informer a past informer for the feds and local law enforcement and apparently they say he's repeatedly worked undercover for investigators after he was arrested in 2012 according to a former prosecutor and a transcript from 2014 from federal court stuff so what do you make of the fact that the

[47:09]

so what do you make of the fact that the leader of the proud boys is a well-known and former police informer or law enforcement informer do you think he was doing the same thing with the proud boys or is that the biggest coincidence in the world is that the biggest coincidence in the
world ah that's a big one that's a big coincidence yeah somebody's saying it's a psyop i can't rule it out i don't have any reason to believe he was but uh he's an interesting character and i would i would say if if i were a member of the proud boys the day that i learned this i would not be a member of the proud boys anymore yeah you can do whatever you want and i suppose just getting a new leader might be all you need but if i found this out that my leader was a well-known police informant i'm pretty sure i would change change organizations or form a

[48:11]

change change organizations or form a new one or something
gordon chang who is very anti-china maybe as much anti-china as i am he writes in the in the hill that the chinese leaders did not
not test trump militarily they didn't they didn't push him but they're already pushing biden and this part blew my mind this is what gordon chang writes in the hill he says that she president xi looks like he is going after biden as it is clear chinese leaders think or at least thought they could bully the new american president now that's the kind of statement where you say how do you know what anybody's thinking right and that's kind of a stretch but gordon chang supports that statement by saying how do we know that he goes the derisive derisive is it derisive or redrisive the derisive comment of d dong chang a professor at renmin

[49:12]

d dong chang a professor at renmin university were recorded and publicly circulated around china dee basically claimed that china would be able to determine outcomes in washington if trump lost the election
that's pretty shocking right so in other words we actually have a recording where somebody who's a professor at a university that's you know well controlled by the the chinese government and he was willing to say in public that china would be able to determine outcomes in washington if trump lost the election
what they're saying it out loud that if it's biden they can push him around and that trump they weren't they weren't willing to push him around because it was too risky
wow now will you see this story in reuters no will you see this story on cnn no

[50:12]

no will you see this story on cnn no msnbc no no you won't um so it's it's left to you know pundits and
and people like me and people like gordon chang to tell you that a story
um i think we're we've reached a point especially with the ability to communicate anywhere anytime adding to that the fact that humans are bribable and there's a lot of money in the world i feel as if we're reaching the point where every government is just going to be controlled by outside money because they can and the way it looks like the way governments will be controlled is through the news so if you try to control the government by let's say bribing or directly controlling an american politician well you can do that but that's a little risky isn't it controlling a politician you know somebody else if somebody finds out the

[51:12]

somebody else if somebody finds out the politician took a check or did a did a paid speech for some other country yeah you're probably going to find out there's going to be a record of it somewhere it's a bad look but suppose instead you create an army of influenced journalists who little by little seep into the into the you know the mainstream media and become your news what happens when you've got some influential journalists
um influential journalists and they're they're creating the news narrative and it's just based from china or russia or
or iran or something that looks to be what we have because what would have stopped china or iran or anybody else from capturing journalists in this country what would stop them from doing it i can't think of anything because there'd be probably a hundred different ways that you could bribe

[52:13]

different ways that you could bribe somebody and why wouldn't they i'm sure we're doing it we must be doing it in other countries right so the the new uh the new war if you will is an information war i hate to say infowars but maybe somebody who came up with that term understood what was coming better than anybody else
and that is world war iii essentially you know world war iii is you know what we do with cyber plus what we do with information warfare so we are in deep information war with china and iran and or other adversaries and i don't know if we know it it's hard to win a war you don't know you're fighting right so china could actually conquer the united states just with changing the news narrative and you know looking at the way things are going it looks like they have a good shot at

[53:15]

it looks like they have a good shot at it right
so our country is given its information by stooges so here's a question for you do we know how much influence china in particular has on different news organizations do we know i don't know somebody's mentioning andy no gno no and apparently he had to move out of the country or he did move out of the country because of death threats against him and his family for just reporting that's it he just reported mostly on antifa and black lives matter protests before that you know his family was targeted he got lots of death threats and has moved out of the country are there any are there any democrats who've had to move out of the country yet
yet because of death threats nope remember when i told you that republicans would be haunted

[54:16]

be haunted now i don't know if andy would i don't think he would classify himself as a republican i don't know you know i don't know one way or the other but since he was clearly reporting on stuff that the left didn't like and i think he gets you know andy's probably has more followers on the right he would be associated with it now when i said republicans would be hunted and people would say to me mockingly give me one example of that well there it is andy now he he was hunted literally they found his family they found his home and they did threats against him and his physical home he was haunted he had to leave
they moved to canada and spain on their own when trump won in 2016. oh yeah that didn't happen somebody says yeah yeah nobody really moved rand paul was hunted by his neighbor right steve scalise

[55:17]

right steve scalise was funded by that shooter but that was in a different situation
twitter must really be afraid of peter navarro's nefario report you say well you know the trouble with the navarro report and the trouble with anything that does a laundry list of election allegations is that if you do if you do a list of things that you're alleging about the election credibility that list is guaranteed to have some on it guaranteed because we don't know what's true and what isn't so if you put together a bunch of allegations and let's say there are 10 things on the list there's no way all 10 of those things are going to be true no way they might none of them be true but the one thing you can guarantee is that not all 10 of them are true there's going to be an explanation for something and if you do if you do that approach it

[56:19]

and if you do if you do that approach it makes you very non-credible because it guarantees you're saying at least something that's not true about the election and then you can get banned so if i were to give you advice i would say do maybe one claim at a time if you think it stands out as one that hasn't been addressed in any way then then you would live and die on that one claim so maybe maybe you feel like you've got a good case there i wouldn't recommend it actually because it's actually a little too dangerous to question the election but if you do a laundry list you're definitely dead because the laundry list will have enough wrong stuff in it guaranteed that that will be enough to get rid of you
you all right um
and yeah i think some of the math claims are interesting but they don't guarantee anything you know that the statistical stuff would have to have been backed up with some some more detail to

[57:20]

backed up with some some more detail to be meaningful it raises questions but that's all it does am i moving to texas i think i have too many reasons to stay here here being in california not here here i'm going to give you one more look
we're here in tahiti on the way home to the states tonight late flight oh so tomorrow morning i should be still flying or at least unavailable if i land before it's time for the periscope maybe i'll try doing it from the car or something if i have a signal but chances are you will not see me tomorrow but you'll see me the day after and i'll try to do it tomorrow if i can see you later