Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1183 Scott Adams： Let's Talk About the Massive Brainwashing Operation Going on Now

00:00:00.000 Hey everybody, come on in. It is delightful to see you all. I know you're coming here

00:00:16.800 because it's the best time of the day, every single time. And one way you can know it will

00:00:25.780 be an incredible day is if you have the simultaneous sip. Yeah, it's pretty much guaranteed if you do

00:00:33.160 that. And all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tankard, chalice or stein, a canteen jug or

00:00:38.500 flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now

00:00:47.240 for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better

00:00:52.700 except statistics. It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now. Go.

00:01:02.080 Ah, I can feel my Benford curve bending. Can't you? Yeah. Well, there's an allegation that CNN got rid

00:01:13.580 of its COVID banner. Do you think that's true? Because I don't know if they use the COVID counter

00:01:23.860 on every single story all the time anyway. So are we only imagining that they suddenly took down the

00:01:31.200 COVID death count? Because I feel as though that wasn't for every story all the time. They just put

00:01:37.740 it up now and then. So I got a feeling that's fake news. But we'll talk about some other fake news

00:01:43.440 and some real ones. A company called Celex, a biotech company, and Gauss, who's a computer vision

00:01:52.960 startup, they announced that they have got approval for an at-home coronavirus test.

00:01:59.380 It has sensitivities of 94% and specificity of 97%. Now, I'm not going to get into the technical

00:02:10.620 difference between the sensitivity and the specificity. One has to do with finding the

00:02:16.620 virus. The other has to do with finding antibodies, I think. But the point is that these are sensitive

00:02:22.360 enough that if you had a lot of these and people had them at home and they could test it themselves,

00:02:29.380 I think it comes with this little inexpensive device that comes with the test kit or something.

00:02:35.200 That's how they make it cheap. But isn't it great that Vice President-elect Biden is getting so much

00:02:43.420 done? So now he's got a vaccine and it looks like Vice President-elect Biden now has a cheap

00:02:52.780 at-home test. Those were the two things we needed to get past coronavirus. And it only took Vice

00:03:00.160 President-elect one week to get all of that done. So jokes on President Trump for doing absolutely

00:03:09.280 nothing for four years. And then Biden comes in one week, one week. He's got this whole pandemic

00:03:16.280 under control. So I guess a pretty good deal. Here's some more fake news. If you saw on social

00:03:24.020 media that RealClearPolitics had decided to take Pennsylvania out of the Biden column and put it

00:03:32.240 into the undecided column, I fell for that one. I even retweeted that one. Fake news. Fake news.

00:03:39.900 Never happened. It turns out the RealClearPolitics never had Pennsylvania as decided in the first

00:03:46.840 place. So there was nothing to reverse. Just somebody noticed it wasn't there and assumed

00:03:52.680 it had been reversed. But they just had kept it undecided. Another fake news is also saw on I think

00:04:02.560 only on social media that Brett Baer deleted a tweet because it got so much pushback and Fox News

00:04:11.500 hatred. And the tweet that he deleted that got all of this Fox News hatred was him just tweeting that

00:04:18.120 he'll be on tonight with Martha McCallum. And that was it. His entire tweet was, I'll be on at

00:04:26.220 you know, X time with Martha McCallum. But in the comments there were just, you know, reams of

00:04:31.500 Fox News hatred because mostly because of the Arizona calling that for Biden in what people thought was

00:04:38.380 too early. And then Brett Baer deleted the tweet and it gets reported as as if he deleted it because

00:04:45.600 of all the bad feedback. But fake news. Fake news. In my opinion, it's fake news. Because even this

00:04:56.100 morning, I tweeted that same kind of tweet, which I will delete as soon as we're done here. Because

00:05:03.500 my tweet said something about my today's episode of this. So if I leave that tweet up until tomorrow,

00:05:11.780 it will look like I'm referring to tomorrow as today. So of course, I will delete it.

00:05:17.740 All Brett Baer did was delete a tweet that should be deleted because it times out because it's talking

00:05:24.580 about today. You don't leave a tweet up that talks about today after today. It would be misleading.

00:05:33.420 So, you know, I can't read Brett Baer's mind and know whether he deleted it because of all the bad

00:05:39.340 comments. But I know that if he didn't delete it just as a matter of course, because it is a

00:05:47.040 deletable tweet that should be deleted on the next day. I'd be surprised. All right. So that's your little

00:05:53.960 bit of fake news there. Fox News also reported that Bill Barr, Attorney General, has given the green

00:06:02.240 light for the Department of Justice to look into election mischief. And here's how Fox News couched

00:06:13.120 that. Even though little evidence of fraud has been put forth. Do you find that to be a true

00:06:22.760 statement? Would you say it's true that, quote, little evidence of fraud has been put forth?

00:06:32.140 Would you say that's a true statement? That feels like an opinion, doesn't it? Because how much is

00:06:39.160 a lot? How much is a little? If you've been looking at the statistical arguments, you mostly will,

00:06:48.340 or maybe only, mostly I think, we'll see it on social media. You won't see it on the news so much.

00:06:54.540 Now, I would assume that a lot of those statistical arguments, when you dig into them, you might find

00:07:01.240 out that they don't hold up. That's what I would expect. Just in general, any kind of claims in this

00:07:07.440 situation are not going to hold up in the long run. It wouldn't matter if the roles were reversed.

00:07:12.620 It wouldn't matter what the claim is, almost. You know, a lot of things won't hold up in the long run.

00:07:17.900 But there are a lot of them, wouldn't you say? Wouldn't you say that there are a lot of statistical

00:07:25.280 claims and that they haven't been debunked? That doesn't mean that they won't be debunked.

00:07:32.000 But what we're talking about now is, is there evidence enough that professionals should get

00:07:37.920 involved looking into it? We're not saying that something's been proven already. That's the whole

00:07:43.940 point of having the professionals look into it, to see if there's anything that can be or should be

00:07:49.000 proven. So is it accurate to say that there's little evidence? I would say that there's a lot of

00:07:57.280 evidence that's been presented, but it has not been confirmed. Wouldn't that be more accurate?

00:08:04.280 Plenty of allegations, plenty of evidence presented, mostly in the statistical sense,

00:08:11.060 but not confirmed. Isn't that exactly why you have the Department of Justice look into it?

00:08:18.900 Yeah, it seems to me there are plenty of claims. Whether they hold up is a separate question.

00:08:23.520 All right. Joe Biden could set a weird record by becoming president, if in fact he becomes president.

00:08:34.120 So every time I talk about president-elect Joe Biden or Joe Biden being president,

00:08:39.780 run a little recording in your head that says, but you know, it's not official and it could well be

00:08:47.260 reversed and there's a pretty good chance it will be. So play that in your head every time you hear me

00:08:52.500 talking about Joe Biden, okay? It could be reversed. It probably will be. Well, I don't know if it

00:08:58.500 probably will be, but there's a good chance. But here's the weird record he could have. He could get

00:09:04.700 the most votes in absolute numbers. He could get the most votes of anybody ever elected president

00:09:11.780 while simultaneously having the lowest approval of any president.

00:09:17.260 Now, I say he will have the lowest approval level without regard to anything he actually does.

00:09:26.580 Because can you say with some certainty that Republicans will say he's doing a bad job?

00:09:34.060 Yes, of course. Exactly as you could say if a Republican is president, you could count on just about all of the

00:09:42.440 Democrats saying that Republican is doing a bad job. But what's different is that while Trump consolidated

00:09:50.260 Republicans, he had something like, I don't know, 96% support, it looks like Biden's going to be going in

00:09:58.720 with a split Democratic Party, you know, the extremists, if you will, the progressives and the moderates.

00:10:05.440 So if you imagine that the half, or let's say a third of the Democratic Party will be unhappy with

00:10:13.920 Joe Biden because he's not extreme enough, and 100% or something like it of the Republicans will be

00:10:20.600 against him, doesn't that get you down to the lowest job approval of all time, while also

00:10:28.520 simultaneously getting the most votes for president? That's going to happen, right? I mean, almost certainly

00:10:34.620 that's going to happen. I don't know how it's going to be avoided. So I think we'll see Biden approvals

00:10:39.140 in the low 40s, eventually. You know, you'll have a little honeymoon period, perhaps. Maybe this will

00:10:46.880 be the time there is no honeymoon period. But I would expect it to drift into the low 40s. And I don't

00:10:52.860 think it will ever get anywhere near Trump approval levels. If Biden becomes president, which is by no

00:11:01.860 means certain, certainly has not been determined, and there's a good chance it won't happen.

00:11:10.820 All right. Here's an interesting question, which I think should be posed to Democrats.

00:11:20.160 And it goes like this. If you believed that Trump was an existential threat, and you believed he was a

00:11:30.940 Hitler-like character, and don't you feel that Democrats would say they do believe that, and did

00:11:38.200 believe that, that Trump is not an ordinary Republican, but rather an existential threat, and a Hitler-like

00:11:45.800 menace to the world, if not the country. Now, if you believe that, and you're willing to say that in

00:11:52.660 public, yes, I believe that is true, how do you defend not trying to rig the election, if that is also

00:12:00.340 your claim that it was not rigged? How in the world could you be a moral, ethical, good person, and you

00:12:08.640 wouldn't try to rig the election to keep Hitler out of office? Because let me tell you, I would try to 0.97

00:12:14.580 rig that election. I would risk jail to keep an existential threat and a Hitler out of office. Why 0.92

00:12:22.640 wouldn't you? If you put me in that situation, I'm either going to say, well, it's not that bad. He's not

00:12:29.920 actually Hitler. Or, if I say that he is Hitler, and I believe it, I'm going to act on it. You don't not act on 0.98

00:12:41.120 Hitler. Now, granted, not every person is going to act on everything, but shouldn't you expect the Democrats as a

00:12:50.020 group would have plenty of people who would say, whoa, this is not like other elections. This is not like every other

00:12:57.700 year. We've got to go here and act. I just realized I might be wearing my shirt backwards. Just ignore the fact that my

00:13:07.620 shirt is inside out. Not backwards, inside out. Act like you don't even see it. If you're watching, if you're just

00:13:16.040 listening to this on the podcast and you can't see the video, there's nothing wrong with my shirt. I'm wearing

00:13:22.880 my shirt completely correctly. So anyway, Democrats have some weird cognitive dissonance trigger here,

00:13:32.200 because if they didn't try to rig the election, they're either liars or cowards, or there's something 0.99

00:13:39.380 going on that we don't understand. Maybe there's some other explanation. All right, now you're obsessed 0.99

00:13:46.860 with my shirt, so you won't hear anything else I say. All right, one pushback I saw from somebody who

00:13:57.960 tried to argue against the statistical arguments about the election being rigged. Now the statistical

00:14:04.600 arguments, if you haven't heard them, it's a variety of different arguments about different things

00:14:10.380 that all have the same quality, which is this couldn't have happened by itself, meaning that some

00:14:17.300 of the argument is that there are more people who voted than has ever voted as a percentage of the

00:14:24.600 population by a lot. So much so that the odds that it really happened are not zero, but really close

00:14:35.980 to zero. But you could say to yourself, well, that's just one thing. It is natural that if you're looking

00:14:43.920 at a lot of different statistics, some of them are going to be weird, because that's how statistics work.

00:14:49.720 And here's an argument that I saw online from just random Twitter user, but I thought it was

00:14:56.500 interesting enough to talk about. And he said that the statistical arguments are cherry picking.

00:15:03.240 And his argument is this. You could find, if you cherry picked and looked for them, you could find places

00:15:10.840 where the vote was unusual for Republicans. In other words, you could find a city where the Republican vote

00:15:18.860 was way on a line or the number of people who voted doesn't make sense. Do you believe that? Now,

00:15:24.920 I don't know that anybody's looked for that. But if they did look, do you believe that they would find

00:15:30.380 also statistical anomalies that go in the other direction? Not a bad comment, is it? If we're trying

00:15:38.160 to be rational here, you know, and I try to create a culture, if you will, for my live streams, that

00:15:47.420 you're not going to be dogmatic and just agree with your team on every single thing, because that's

00:15:53.440 sort of not what we do here. So if you're being objective, and you saw a whole bunch of statistical

00:16:02.000 claims made by one side against the other, but you hadn't seen the full context, how certain should you be

00:16:10.660 that those statistical claims could not have been made in the other direction if somebody just looked for

00:16:16.060 them? It's a pretty good comment, isn't it? Right? No, not really. Because there's a second layer to the

00:16:27.540 claims. The claims are not simply, hey, we found some cities and some locations that have some

00:16:34.660 anomalies. If that were the only claim, then it would be a perfectly good debunking to say,

00:16:41.140 there are always anomalies. There will be anomalies in the other direction. There's going to be some

00:16:47.020 anomalies this way. Every year you looked at it, there would be anomalies. Any other situation you looked

00:16:52.900 at that that was big and complicated, you would see a statistical distribution where there's a little

00:16:58.720 bit of natural clustering, and it wouldn't mean a thing. It would just mean that you pick these ones

00:17:04.100 that are anomalies, and there are always anomalies, right? Except for the other layer. The anomalies that

00:17:12.080 worked against the Republicans happen to occur in all the right places.

00:17:19.000 So it's that second level of coincidence that takes it to, okay, this isn't just cherry picking.

00:17:27.700 Probably, right? Now, you and I have not dug into it. You and I are not probably not statistical

00:17:33.600 experts. So we could find out anything in the long run. But the claim that a statistical anomaly

00:17:41.280 will happen, or lots of them will happen in both directions, is fair. But when you add that extra

00:17:47.960 layer, why did they only happen in these places? Exactly the places that they needed to happen.

00:17:54.100 Once you add that second layer of coincidence, if the claim holds up, and again, I'm not the one who

00:18:01.080 looked into it personally. I'm just reading claims. But if those claims hold up, it's going to be hard

00:18:07.180 for it to explain that as a coincidence. All right. I don't know why I'm going to mention this, and I

00:18:17.420 probably shouldn't. But you know, you get something in your head, and you can't get it out of your head

00:18:21.880 until you say it out loud. You ever had that situation? There's just a random thing that's not

00:18:27.080 too important, and it's rolling around in your head. But damn it, if you don't say it out loud, 0.99

00:18:31.720 eventually, it'll just keep rolling around in there until you get it out of there. So I'm going 0.99

00:18:36.180 to do that. I will ask your indulgence for a point that has no relevance to anything. And it goes like

00:18:43.780 this. Maybe we live in a simulation because if you're a victim, and this is why I didn't want to

00:18:51.660 mention it, if you're a victim of sexual assault, what professional are you likely to pay to help

00:19:00.620 you if you've been the victim of a sexual assault? Now, of course, there's the legal system, but that's

00:19:09.340 separate. You wouldn't necessarily be paying for that. That would be a public service. But who would

00:19:15.300 you pay? You'd probably pay somebody called a therapist. Yeah, it's your way ahead of me. What

00:19:23.400 are the odds that the people who are the victims of sexual assault are almost have to, because it

00:19:31.180 would mess with your mind, would have to see a professional whose name is a therapist, which is

00:19:36.440 literally the words the rapist put together. I mean, you can't even laugh at that, because the topic is

00:19:46.140 ugly, right? You can't make fun of sexual assault. But what are the odds that the one job that deals

00:19:54.940 with people who are, and fairly frequently, right? I would imagine if you're a therapist, probably,

00:20:01.640 I don't know, 40 to 60% of your business is people who are victims of sexual assault, and that has a

00:20:08.780 big deal, has a lot to do with why they're feeling the way they feel. That's just creepy and crazy, and

00:20:15.340 they need to change their name, honestly. Because I don't think if I had been a victim of that particular

00:20:21.740 crime, that I could ever see the word therapist and feel okay with it. I would always see, always see

00:20:29.680 the part that comes after the, always. I mean, literally, you should just change the name of

00:20:36.340 your business. You should be a something, not a therapist. All right, are you ready for your red

00:20:43.380 pill of the moment? Here it comes. The moment you've been waiting for. The reason that you joined me here

00:20:49.180 on Coffee with Scott Adams. The thought that you did not have on your own until you heard it from me,

00:20:56.120 and it goes like this. Remember, I always tell you to look for what's happening, but if you want to

00:21:01.900 understand the situation also, look for what's not happening, which is called the dog that isn't

00:21:09.620 barking, from Sherlock Holmes reference. So if there's a dog that should have been barking, because the

00:21:15.880 allegation is that there was an intruder in the backyard, and that dog doesn't bark, you have to ask

00:21:23.180 yourself, why is there a lack of facts here? And here is the dog that's not barking about this

00:21:30.600 election. And it comes in the form of top statistical experts who are Democrats, who are looking at the

00:21:38.900 statistical arguments coming out of the weaponized autism on the right, and they're making quite a few

00:21:47.360 claims about statistical irregularities that could not happen naturally. What is the most logical,

00:21:55.860 ordinary thing you would expect to happen, given that the left is completely unified in saying that

00:22:03.220 none of that mischief happened, or if it did, it was trivial. So isn't the most logical thing that CNN

00:22:13.760 would do, given that this claim of impropriety is so big, and it seems to be at least at this point

00:22:21.180 based primarily on statistical observation, plus there are a bunch of witnesses who have signed

00:22:28.300 affidavits, but we'll get to them next. But there's a statistical thing. So wouldn't you expect

00:22:36.200 that the top statistical minds who are anti-Trump would be all over CNN and all over MSNBC, and they

00:22:45.200 would say, you know, this Benford analysis, that's not really a thing, right? Or they'd say, you know,

00:22:53.620 this Benford analysis, it is a thing, but they use the wrong data, or maybe the data isn't reliable,

00:23:01.920 or something. Wouldn't you expect that since the biggest issue in the world is, hey, these statistics

00:23:10.360 show there was a gigantic fraud big enough to change the election, don't you need to get your experts in

00:23:17.060 there to talk against that? You do, don't you? And it's kind of missing, isn't it? Now, did you notice it was

00:23:26.260 missing until I just brought it up? So here's your check on yourself. If you didn't notice this until

00:23:35.880 I brought it up, there's a mental, let's say, method that you're lacking. And the mental method you're

00:23:45.120 lacking is you should every now and then, almost like there's a timer set in your brain, say, wait a

00:23:51.420 minute. Is there anything missing here that you would naturally see here if you knew what should

00:23:57.300 be here? Is there anything missing? That should be part of your mental habit to just always, because

00:24:03.780 you won't be, and here's the hard part, you won't be triggered to look for something that isn't there

00:24:10.440 because that's the point. There's nothing to trigger you. It's simply a lack of something. So there's

00:24:17.840 nothing to remind you to look for the nothing, because there's no trigger for nothing. So you

00:24:24.140 got to, you got to really force yourself. All right, all right. Is there something that should be

00:24:28.440 happening that's missing? And then you can maybe find it. Now, full disclosure, I didn't think of that

00:24:37.420 thought until I saw somebody else say it on Twitter today. So I stole the thought. And I'm the one who

00:24:44.960 teaches you that you should do this. And even I didn't do it. And as soon as I saw that from

00:24:51.360 somebody, I wish I'd gotten the name, but I would give credit to who inspired this thought, but I

00:24:59.840 didn't write it down. So I'm a bad person. Well, you know who you are. If you're watching this

00:25:05.020 live stream, I saw your tweet and I got it from you. So you can claim credit.

00:25:09.100 But keep watching for that. Every day that goes by, the CNN and the other media do not have a

00:25:18.940 statistical expert debunking it. It means something. It does mean something. It's not confirmation,

00:25:26.280 but it certainly pushes you in that direction. I'm going to brag a little bit about my tweet on this

00:25:33.460 very topic because I liked the way I worded it. So I'll share it with you. It's the same point. I

00:25:39.460 just worded it differently. I said in my tweet, do you hear that dog that isn't barking? It's the top

00:25:44.700 statistical experts on the left who are looking at election rigging allegations and coming to a slow

00:25:51.720 boil in their own flop sweat. So I was pretty proud of that sentence.

00:25:57.200 Um, I think we should, you know, there's a lot of, a lot of, uh, questions and skepticism about a

00:26:06.480 software product, or I don't know if it's a company name or the software name called Dominion.

00:26:12.660 Apparently this software company, uh, controls the, uh, the technology for a number of different

00:26:20.100 states and locales. And a lot of questions have been asked about this Dominion software. And I thought,

00:26:26.680 you know, if we can't solve this with the technical people, we should have some kind of a national

00:26:33.220 vote to see if we should keep the Dominion software to, oh wait, that won't work. Okay. Nevermind.

00:26:42.440 I guess we don't have a way to do a national vote about whether our national voting software is

00:26:47.780 credible because who, who would believe the output of a national vote about our software that controls

00:26:56.280 the national vote. All right. Expect this play coming up. This will be what, uh, I use CNN as my

00:27:05.580 stand in for, you know, the, the fake news on the left. So it's not just CNN, but you're going to see

00:27:11.280 what I call the wrong debunk play. So you've got all these claims about, uh, specific allegations that

00:27:18.360 the election was not fair. Uh, do you think that CNN will pick the strongest points? This is what I

00:27:27.420 always recommend. If somebody gives you a laundry list of reasons, just ask for the strongest point

00:27:32.580 and debunk that one. And then if you debunk the strongest point, just say, eh, the rest of your

00:27:38.940 stuff is worse than that one. I already debunked that one and walk away. But here's another play that

00:27:45.520 you can do with the laundry list. So the Republicans have offered a laundry list of alleged, uh, mischief

00:27:51.980 with this election. Here's, so let's say, I'm just making up this number by the way, but let's say the

00:27:58.020 GOP says we have 25 statistical arguments for why the vote was rigged. It'll be some number. I made up 25.

00:28:06.120 What will the Democrats say to that? You can predict this with complete certainty.

00:28:11.860 They will, uh, misinterpret some of the claims and they will debunk their own misinterpretation of

00:28:19.560 the claims. And then they will ignore the other claims, the good ones. So they'll pick ones that

00:28:26.280 are either the weakest ones to debunk or they'll misinterpret a strong one and debunk their

00:28:32.400 misinterpretation. But they'll do about three of them if there are 24. And then CNN will report

00:28:39.600 what will, what will be the words that CNN would report under the example I just gave? 25 statistical

00:28:48.220 claims with backing from the Republicans. And then the Democrats misinterpret three of them and debunk

00:28:56.380 their own misinterpretation of just three of them. And the 25, this is the hypothetical here. This is not

00:29:02.440 news. This is hypothetical. What would CNN report under that scenario? Baseless.

00:29:09.600 Exactly. I'm seeing it in the comments. You're all there first. They would say it's been debunked.

00:29:15.980 It's baseless and no evidence has been offered. And it's a, and it's a baseless conspiracy theory.

00:29:24.160 You know, that's coming a hundred percent chance. You can see the play coming. And the reason that you

00:29:30.700 can see it coming and it doesn't matter is that it will work. It will work. Now that doesn't mean it'll be

00:29:37.400 the final word, but it will be persuasive. It will convince, uh, Democrats. Um, DeRay McKesson,

00:29:46.260 who's, uh, a Black Lives Matter activist, he won a Supreme Court ruling. Apparently he was being sued

00:29:55.100 but for being an organizer of a protest in which some other person who is not DeRay threw a, I don't know,

00:30:02.860 a brick or a rock or something at a police officer and caused brain damage, loss of teeth and a head

00:30:08.960 injury. So, you know, a major life, um, problem there forever for that police officer. Pretty tragic.

00:30:18.380 But I guess the Supreme Court ruled that as the organizer, you are not responsible for the actions

00:30:24.500 of individuals who get organized. And I think it probably has to be that way. I don't see any way

00:30:30.760 that you can hold the, a free speech organizer responsible for what the individuals do. So I

00:30:38.060 get that it has to be that way. So I would agree with the Supreme Court. I think they got the ruling

00:30:42.280 right. But I feel as if, if you organize something in which you know there will be violence, but you don't

00:30:50.960 know the specific violence and you're not the one that threw the rock. At some point, we need to be

00:30:57.260 smarter about this. Because organizing events that guarantee somebody is going to get hurt,

00:31:04.200 I don't know, maybe we can do better. I don't know. I don't have an idea, but I feel like we

00:31:07.940 could do better. Now, one of the things that's weird about this situation we're seeing with the

00:31:12.400 election is that you don't, you don't often have a situation where you're being brainwashed

00:31:19.660 and you know it while it's happening. Sometimes you can look back and say, wait a minute,

00:31:26.380 I did the, I did the Pledge of Allegiance every day when I was a kid without even questioning it.

00:31:32.180 Hey, I was being brainwashed. So often you can see it in, in the history, but you don't often feel it

00:31:40.520 while it's happening to you in the moment. And that's what we're feeling right now. We're feeling

00:31:45.520 in the moment that, oh, somebody, I think somebody is correcting me in the comments that the DeRay

00:31:52.360 McKesson thing might have been a civil action, if that makes a difference to the story. It might.

00:32:00.160 But anyway, back to brainwashing. We are being, the country is being brainwashed right now. And I don't

00:32:06.040 use that word figuratively. The, the, everything from, uh, intelligence professionals, not necessarily

00:32:13.500 actively working, but the news business and Democrats are working together. It's very obvious

00:32:18.980 now. I think I can say that with, with certainty. Yeah. As opposed to an allegation that they do work

00:32:24.940 together. They coordinate whether or not they have meetings to coordinate. They obviously coordinate

00:32:30.320 messaging, et cetera, and that they are brainwashing the public to accept this, uh, this outcome. Now,

00:32:38.200 when I say brainwashing, um, they are not really dealing with the facts of whether it was fraudulent

00:32:47.960 or not, or how much it was fraudulent, but they're literally telling people that they're bad people for

00:32:53.080 being skeptical of the outcome, that you're actually a bad person. If you don't believe the outcome

00:32:59.520 and you spread rumors that you don't believe it, uh, and that worse, that you will be held to account

00:33:06.600 for doubting it. Now my, I just got a message that my battery on my device is down to 10%. I'm going to

00:33:13.740 try to rush to the end here. If it cuts off, uh, it would only cut off on YouTube first. Uh, you'll know

00:33:20.500 what happened. I won't be back because I'm almost done. Penn Jillette, uh, penned, uh, article. I love Penn

00:33:26.760 Jillette, by the way. I got to hang out with him once in Vegas after a show. Great guy. I love Penn

00:33:32.740 Jillette and also a, a great patriot. I would say he adds a lot to the country. So he made a case,

00:33:40.480 um, that, uh, he, he wasn't so much pro Joe Biden as he was, you know, he wanted a, you know, a better

00:33:47.740 world, I guess. Um, and he wants one thing for Joe Biden to do. And I would say this is a very, um,

00:33:56.860 kind, productive, good thing to ask for. And he's asking for, uh, the Joe Biden to, uh, help,

00:34:05.900 help them love all the Trump supporters. So Penn Jillette is anti-Trump, but he's asking as the

00:34:12.800 number one priority to get for Joe Biden to help Democrats love Trump supporters, despite whatever

00:34:20.580 they think about them. I'm not there. You know, I love Penn Jillette. I like that. I like the, uh,

00:34:30.100 the thought, the emotion, the philosophy behind what he's asking for, but he has a blind spot

00:34:35.620 and the blind spot goes like this. Joe Biden called Trump supporters by implication racists

00:34:45.260 for the last year because he led his campaign with that stupid fine people hoax, which makes anybody 0.98

00:34:52.640 who backs somebody who had said, if Trump had backed the neo-Nazis, if you were to back Trump 0.98

00:34:59.400 after he, it's fake news, but after they say he backed the neo-Nazis, well, you would be kind of a

00:35:05.440 racist or a neo-Nazi. And I don't think the Democrats quite understand what happened. I don't

00:35:12.740 think they understand what happened to Republicans and what happened to Trump supporters, be they

00:35:18.780 Republican or not. I don't think they know that you don't get over that. That's not in the category

00:35:26.220 of things you get over. Let me give you an example of something you get over. Hey, you're stupid.

00:35:32.440 I can get over that. You made a dumb choice. I can get over that. You, you choose all the wrong 1.00

00:35:41.440 policies, you dumb, ignorant guy. I can get over that. But after a year of the, the standard bearer 1.00

00:35:50.500 for your party, calling me a racist effectively by saying the fine people hoax, that's not,

00:35:58.500 that's not like those other things. That is unforgivable, period. It is unforgivable.

00:36:07.300 Joe Biden, you're not a nice person. You're one of the worst people that I've ever seen in the public 0.95

00:36:12.280 arena. Because I feel like you knew that wasn't true. And if you didn't know it wasn't true, you're 0.99

00:36:18.700 really incompetent. Because it's pretty easy to know that wasn't true. So I, I'm just going to speak for 0.88

00:36:27.260 myself, I don't plan to get over it. I don't plan to accept any of their love, if they are so kind as

00:36:35.380 to forgive me for, for my actions. I believe, yeah, and it was racist. So I think Joe Biden is a horrible

00:36:45.580 person. And I mean that sincerely. I mean that as a human being, forget about the politics, forget about 0.98

00:36:52.080 Democrats versus Republicans. As a human being, he's really a deeply horrible person. And I mean that 0.99

00:36:59.000 sincerely. And that's not going to change. I am not ever going to forgive this last year. Now, if there

00:37:07.100 are people who say the same thing about Trump, and he did this or that, you know, you're, you're welcome

00:37:13.200 to your opinion. But don't even, don't even ask me to not think that Joe Biden is a horrible human 0.52

00:37:19.560 being, even if he turns out to be a good president. You know, anything's possible. Could

00:37:24.660 be that the Republican Senate keeps him in the middle, something good happens there. You never

00:37:29.580 know. But as a human, he is despicable. Just a horrible, horrible person. Really one of the worst, 0.98

00:37:37.340 I'm going to be honest, one of the worst people of all time. It's, you know, he's not even just in the

00:37:45.420 slightly annoying category. He's one of the worst people of all time with what he did in this past

00:37:51.680 year. It's fresh. You know, and by the way, have you ever heard me complain about his 1990 whatever 0.62

00:37:59.060 for crime bill? Have you ever heard me complain about that? I don't. Because I give everybody a

00:38:05.240 pass for what they did 20 years ago. And maybe it made sense 20 years ago. I just not, it wasn't part

00:38:12.140 of anything I thought was impossible or important. And he's also said it was a mistake. So I'm very

00:38:19.700 forgiving for somebody who said I made a mistake 20 years ago, and I wish I hadn't. Totally forgiving

00:38:26.060 for that. But this is fresh. He's still saying it today. I mean, if you asked him, he'd repeat it

00:38:33.180 again today. That person is a horrible, horrible person. Let's see. What would be your theory if you 1.00

00:38:45.100 were a Democrat for why there seems to be massive allegations of fraud this year, but we have not had

00:38:52.960 these massive allegations of frauds in presidential elections recently, right? So why would it just be

00:39:00.140 this year? If you're a Democrat, how do you explain it? Well, I think the way they're explaining it is

00:39:04.880 that the Republicans are just making it up. Right? The only way they can explain what they're observing

00:39:12.680 is to imagine that the Republicans are just making it up, and that it didn't really happen, or if it

00:39:19.220 happened, it was some low-grade stuff, not enough to change any outcome. So that's probably the Democrat 0.71

00:39:25.760 view. Now, as I've told you, the biggest mistake that people make in their thinking about other

00:39:31.340 people is to imagine that people think like you do, because we don't. People are thinking very

00:39:38.240 differently. Let me tell you what I think explains our observation that the Republicans are claiming

00:39:45.580 massive fraud this time, but it doesn't seem to have been something that people complained about in

00:39:51.720 the past. Here it goes. We've never had an election with this much fraud. Now, you would say to yourself,

00:39:59.580 but Scott, Scott, Scott, people care about every election. Why wouldn't there have been as much

00:40:04.980 fraud last time? I mean, people cared about Hillary, clearly. And here's my hypothesis. My hypothesis is that

00:40:15.140 there is pretty bad fraud in every election, and that we just don't care, because we can't tell if it

00:40:23.180 changed the election. We have some sense that both parties are doing it, at least at the local level,

00:40:29.500 right? If there's anybody on here who says only Democrats play with elections at the local level,

00:40:35.480 you need to maybe look into that a little bit, because my guess is that at the local level always

00:40:45.200 has been some amount of fraud. But we kind of got used to it. It became like our baseline. It's like,

00:40:51.780 yeah, it might have determined the election. For example, they would say some historians would say

00:40:57.420 that Kennedy's election probably turned on fraud. I think you would see the same claim for at least a few

00:41:04.600 other elections in the past, probably some Senate elections, etc. But what is different about this

00:41:11.440 time is that the media had decided that Trump was Hitler, and so the motivation for fraud was through

00:41:18.960 the roof, right? But again, I tell you, even if you thought he was Hitler, probably every election,

00:41:27.920 the side wanted their side to win and wanted it badly. So even if they thought he was Hitler,

00:41:32.640 the people who actually could rig an election, they probably had all the motivation they needed

00:41:38.220 every other year or two, right? You don't need to stop Hitler. If you just want your person to win, 0.80

00:41:44.680 that's probably enough to cheat. But why would there be so much more cheating, hypothetically,

00:41:50.840 if that happened? Why would there be so much more this year? Is it just because Trump is extra bad?

00:41:57.080 Here's my hypothesis. This is the first year that the cheaters could be sure that the press would cover

00:42:05.760 for them. You feel that? In any prior year, you couldn't be sure that the press would cover your

00:42:15.160 tracks. Because even CNN in a prior election and years going by, I feel like they would have covered

00:42:21.900 the story. They would have said, here's a story. We don't know if it's true, but there's this big

00:42:26.800 allegations of mischief. We're going to put some of our reporters on it too, and they'll dig in a

00:42:33.240 little bit too. So we'll not only report the story, but we'll dig into it. Because it's a pretty

00:42:40.180 important thing. But if you were going to cheat in this election, you could know with complete

00:42:46.120 confidence that even if you were detected, which looks exactly like what happened, the press would

00:42:53.460 tell the country it didn't happen, and you could just walk. And likewise, there probably are lots of

00:43:01.840 local law enforcement type people who are enough pro-Biden or anti-Trump to simply look the other way.

00:43:10.060 So I don't think there's ever been an election where you had this much motivation, but again, I don't

00:43:15.140 think it was the motivation that was the key variable. I think the key variable is knowing that this is

00:43:20.920 the first year there's no chance of going to jail, that you can just do whatever you want, and the press

00:43:27.700 will cover your tracks. So that's my explanation of observation. Doesn't mean it's right, but it explains

00:43:34.900 our observation. And then I have this question for you. If you have a situation where the press, that seems

00:43:43.300 to be the dominant press, is on the same team as one of the political parties, and that's clearly the

00:43:50.580 case, the press is on the side of the Democrats, why do you need press anymore? What would be the

00:43:57.860 purpose of the press in a situation where they're siding with one of the teams? There's no point.

00:44:05.540 The press has actually become irrelevant, because they took a side. The moment they take a side,

00:44:13.540 they don't have any point. There's just no point to having a press. All right, that's all for now.

00:44:21.040 I'll talk to you tomorrow.

00:44:22.800 Okay, YouTubers, I've turned off Periscope. I probably have two percent battery left on this

00:44:31.220 device. And yeah, the press is brainwashing. That is correct. You know, as a student of persuasion,

00:44:38.400 there is, I am fascinated by watching this major national psyop. And I also said, I don't remember

00:44:47.380 if I said this in a tweet or said it yesterday in Periscope, but you can see the network of

00:44:53.280 operatives by which ones are doing what. So if you see Jake Tapper telling the same story that, say,

00:45:01.700 John Brennan would want you to hear, you might imagine that they may not be directly connected,

00:45:08.880 but they're operating with the same set of operation manuals, if you will. So

00:45:14.360 that's all we got. Yeah, Sidney Powell is being very interesting right now, because she's making 1.00

00:45:23.360 the most aggressive claims about the election being rigged. Now, one of the reasons that I think

00:45:30.560 that the Republicans are able to go full on claims of rigging the election is I think that Trump can

00:45:41.200 simply do things that regular Republicans can't. Because I think if you're a regular Republican,

00:45:47.220 you don't want the election to be looked at too closely. Because you know there's going to be

00:45:51.840 some Republican mischief in that bunch too. And maybe you're just like, ah, they cheated better

00:45:56.900 than we did this year. We'll get them next year. So I got a feeling that you'd have to be Trump

00:46:02.380 to even open up the question of whether this election was rigged. Because I got a feeling they're

00:46:08.720 mostly rigged, and maybe always have been. It's just nobody wanted to look into them.

00:46:13.520 All right, that's all for now. Talk to you tomorrow.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - November 10, 2020

Episode 1183 Scott Adams： Let's Talk About the Massive Brainwashing Operation Going on Now

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript