Scott Adams Has A Take On The DC Protest Different From Any You Will Hear Today (VIDEO)

Written by Wes Walker on January 7, 2021

Become a Clash Insider!

Big Tech is clamping down on conservative media big time. Don’t let Big Tech pre-chew your news. Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we’ll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Follow Doug on Parler @TheGilesWay.

There’s a reason Scott Adams has such an enormous following — his observations and insights seldom echo anyone’s official talking points.

He seldom gets emotionally wound up, he generally leans toward being analytical in his insights and observations. The fact that he is regularly praised and denounced by people on both ends of the political spectrum says something about how politically independent he is capable of being.

He begins this video, discussing the protest where Federal buildings in DC were stormed by protesters, by addressing a question of consistency. Having once supported Colin Kapernick’s protest as something that was effective because it made the people who’s attention Kapernick was trying to capture uncomfortable, he measured this protest by that same standard.

What was the issue, and was the demonstration proportional to the problem they were trying to address?

Adams has accepted the Biden win as inevitable from the very first day news outlets started declaring him the President-Elect.

AND, he still remains unconvinced by many of the claims of election fraud.

That’s what makes what he says in this video so interesting.

Despite that being his starting point, he acknowledges something the fake news media does not. There has been a catastrophic, systematic, and deliberate lack of transparency throughout this process.

There is no reasonable reason to expect that the government had any motivation to correct that same lack of transparency on the way to any future elections.

Going back to his original position that a protest of adequate magnitude, and causing enough discomfort to drive the required change would be required, he thought about whether this protest met that criteria.

Allowing all the usual provisos about not judging any larger group by the worst actions of a few individuals in it, and that he in no way endorsed any physical violence against individuals, if any had happened (this video came out before much detail was publicly known, even about the woman who had been shot), Adams concluded that:

1) This was not an insurrection against the government, because the government — at its root — consists of the people, not the building where they meet.

2) This was a way that citizens whose voices had been ignored could send a message that couldn’t be ignored

He even cited the logic of AOC to make his point.

Scott thinks this protest was sized appropriately for the problem. He never faults protesters if they’re not hurting anybody.

Toward the end of the conversation, when Trump’s social media suspension came up, he showed again what makes people keep coming back to hear his insights.

He noted that Silicon Valley and liberal media are now behaving as the gatekeepers for social order, and asked his audience point-blank ‘do you want them to have that job’?

We could use more people that are politically independent to start asking that question. When they hear it on the right, they think they can just dismiss it. But someone like Scott Adams is not, strictly speaking, ‘on the right’. There’s plenty of overlap, and he’s said some positive things about Trump. But it would be inaccurate to call him ideologically right-of-center.

In closing, he makes the point: If we’re still having this conversation during next election, with the same lack of transparency and they haven’t fixed it… ‘we should do this again.’

What do you think? Was Scott’s take on the protest right or ridiculous?

If you disagree, do you disagree because you don’t breaking into the offices should have happened, or because you don’t think it made anyone uncomfortable enough that it will make a difference?