All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 17, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
48:40
Episode 631 Scott Adams: Tlaib Grandmother’s Good Luck, NYT Scandal, End of Racism
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody!
Come on in here. It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams.
As luck would have it, guess who I am?
That's right. Well, you already know who you are.
So by process of elimination, that makes me Scott Adams.
Glad to see you. Come on in, grab a seat.
We have plenty of places to sit.
And if you're ready, if you are prepared, if you know what's coming, you probably are ready for the simultaneous sip.
It doesn't take much. It really doesn't.
Hey, Lyle. Hey, Dan.
All you need to participate in the simultaneous sip is a cup or mug or a glass, a stein, a chalice, a tankard, a thermos, a flask, a canteen, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid I like, coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit that gets your day going and makes everything better.
I call it the simultaneous sip.
Go. Ugh.
Good stuff. Well, apparently, I think today is when there's going to be some event in Portland, a large sporting event between the Proud Boys and Antifa.
I don't know what they're billing it as.
If I were the promoters, I would have called it the Punch-Up in Portland.
Do you like that? The Punch-Up in Portland.
The Pugilism in Portland.
The popping off in Portland.
I don't know. It's hard to come up with a name for these things.
But apparently there's some thought that maybe the far-right types that were going to join, in addition to the Proud Boys, some of them maybe not coming, some of them trying to tone down their rhetoric, some of them, I don't know, there's a little uncertainty about what's going to happen.
But the funny part about it, and it's funny until there's violence, but for now it's funny, The point of the protest is to protest against Antifa as being a domestic terror organization.
So what's funny is they're not protesting, I don't know, any racial group.
They're not protesting any ethnicity.
They're not protesting your sort of normal thing you might imagine from some kind of a Whatever you imagine is the worst case scenario for a far-right event.
Instead the point of it is to protest Antifa for being violent.
Now here's what's funny about this.
Of course, it'll be, you know, distorted by the press.
The press will put a spin on it they want.
But if the point is to point out that Antifa is a violent domestic terrorism group, which is the stated point, who knows what, you know, they're really thinking internally, but the stated point is to highlight that Antifa is a violent domestic terror group.
Now, what's Antifa going to do in response to To being accused of being a domestic terrorist group.
Well, it looks like they're going to put on masks and show up and beat up people.
Now, if that's not entertaining, you're dead inside.
If you can't enjoy that show, I don't know.
Now, normally I would say I'm opposed, for example, I'm opposed to boxing.
I don't think boxing should be legal because it really is just giving each other brain damage.
I don't think the cage-fighting MMA should be legal.
Same reason. It's just a terrible thing for society.
Now, it's a free world, and I'm not out protesting against those things, because in a free world, people will do the things that they want to do, and some of them are dangerous, and where do you draw the line?
I'm just not personally in favor of it.
However, in this one case...
Where there's some bad customers who want violence and want to go to the same place and enjoy it for political reasons.
I don't know. I have trouble feeling sorry for any of them.
Somebody's going to get hurt, and I just have trouble feeling sorry for them.
The people who don't want to get hurt probably shouldn't go.
So let's talk about some other things.
Let us compare our filters.
You recall that when the Epstein thing first went down, and I said, and he died, and there were many questions surrounding his death.
Was he murdered? Did he commit suicide?
And what did I say really before anybody said it?
What did I say about what you were going to find out about Epstein that was the most accurate thing that anybody said about the whole incident?
And I said it before we knew anything.
I said, incompetence has always got to be your top hypothesis.
Now, did we see incompetence?
Wow! Now, some of that incompetence might have been in the form of assisting...
You know, assisting him by looking in the other direction, but it's still incompetence and it would still be suicide.
So, the interesting thing is that I'm watching the news coverage, and I know a lot of you still believe in the conspiracy theory, but here's what my filter predicted, and compare it to your own.
My filter on this said that the cause of death would not be ambiguous.
In other words, the coroner would not say, well, it could go either way.
So my filter was it was clearly a suicide and it would be ruled that way and that we would know it for sure.
That seems to be the case.
It seems to be the case that the coroner is not saying there's still some question about it.
The coroner is saying it's a done deal.
It was suicide.
Now, we don't know what the coroner knows, and maybe if we knew everything the coroner knows, it would give us more context.
But now the people who still cling to the idea that somebody snuck in there in some super competent way, you're not really living in the same world I am.
People are not that competent in the world I live in.
And the big question was, there was a broken bone in Epstein's neck, and people say, you don't get that broken bone if you're just hanging from a bunk bed.
You've got to be hanging from something pretty serious and have a pretty long drop before you can get that broken bone, even if you're older, because your bones break more easily when you're older.
To which I say, do you remember what I said?
I said, we're talking about a guy, Epstein, whose entire story, everything you know about him, is stuff that didn't happen to other people.
Stuff that other people could not have accomplished.
Everything about Epstein was stuff that you look at and say, that doesn't even look possible.
How could it be possible that he got away with this so long?
How could it be possible that he talked dozens and dozens and dozens of underage people into the things that he did?
How could it be possible that he made half a billion dollars in crime and never got charged with a crime for that?
Remember, there are no charges for the half a billion dollars he stole, apparently.
Stole. And then he gets caught, and he gets like a day jail, or night jail, where he only has to go to jail at night.
Who gets that? Everything about Epstein...
Was the unusual case.
So if this person who figured out how to do all these other things that even criminals couldn't figure out how to do, he was like the best of the best criminal.
You know, you have to give him that.
He was a smart guy. So you put that guy, who just consistently does things that other people can't figure out how to do, even criminals, You put him in this situation, what are the odds that he can figure out how to do something that the other criminals couldn't figure out so well?
Really high. Really high.
The odds that he could figure out how to hang himself effectively, break a bone in the process, probably pretty good.
All right. So if your filter said that they were going to find out it was a suspicious death, even if they didn't figure out who killed him, You have to admit that if your filter was suspicious death, you now have to imagine that everybody's in on it, including the coroner's in on it and all the people, the guards.
So if your theory is that all these different people are in on it, you should maybe question your own hypothesis.
That would take a lot of people to be in on it.
But compare that to my hypothesis.
Security guards always fall asleep.
How do I know that? I was a security guard.
How often did I fall asleep?
Every night. For a little while.
The most simple explanation in the world is that people are incompetent.
All right. I would argue that one of the reasons I had some extra vision on this Epstein thing, and many of you did as well, is that anybody who had experience in a big organization would not be surprised at the level of incompetence.
In fact, if you said to me, well, let's take IBM or AT&T or any big company, compare how efficient and competent they are, To how much you wish they could be competent, and you'd say to yourself, oh my god, oh my god, you know, these big companies are so inefficient.
Amazingly so. Without getting into details, I've been doing some work with the bank.
I won't mention the bank, but I haven't worked with the bank on any kind of a deal in a long time.
I'm not in trouble, by the way.
In case you're wondering, there's nothing to worry about.
But the amount of Paperwork and trouble and the number of things that the bank asked me for that they didn't really need was just mind-blowing.
It was just shocking how incompetent the process was.
And this was a Fortune 500 probably best-in-class company.
Major corporation. Best in class.
One of the ones that you said, let me rank all the banks.
You probably would put this one or two at one of the best banks in the world.
And it was thoroughly incompetent.
All the way, the whole process was stuff that you say, as a customer, you say, is that really necessary?
Yes. Then I go to CVS and they give me a six foot long receipt on paper with like coupons throughout it.
And I say to myself, did a competent person come up with this process?
No. These are major corporations.
CVS is one of the biggest corporations in the country.
And they're completely incompetent in most basic customer transaction.
They give you a six-foot-long piece of paper.
I'm not even making it up.
It's six feet long. Actually six feet long.
Like, actually, you hold it here and it goes to the floor.
These are completely incompetent corporations.
Now, let me ask you this.
How do you think a major corporation that makes lots of money attracts the best talent?
How do you think they compare to a jail?
A prison? Who do you think is attracting the cream of the crop employees, training them best, making sure that systems are working?
Corporations. So my experience was with big corporations, and I've seen how incompetent they can be in just normal stuff.
And then I say, well, how bad would a prison be?
There's no way a prison is being run more efficiently than CVS. There's no way it's more efficient than a major bank in this country.
There's no way. So I said, however bad it is for those big corporations, probably worse than prisons.
And sure enough, that was the answer.
Now, the reason I gave you that long explanation is because my book, Loser Think, has that as a major theme, which is that you can have blind spots If you don't have experience in certain areas.
And I would argue that all of the people on here, on this periscope, every one of you who had major experience with a large organization was far more likely to accept incompetence as an explanation for Epstein's situation.
Alright, we'll block you.
You didn't seem happy. I'll make you happy by blocking you.
All right, let's talk about something else.
Did you see the story?
This is really mind-blowing, and it's going to tell you everything you need to know about the world.
About the New York Times, I guess one of the bosses there held a meeting, and a recording got out.
And in the meeting, and I'm going to frame it the way Breitbart and folks on the right have framed it.
It looks that way to me, but you have to be careful because whoever is the first entity to frame a story, you can get biased toward that framing.
So I'm biased toward this framing, but it also looks accurate.
And the framing is this, that the New York Times held a meeting and the boss said to the assembled staff, We had built our business in our newsroom.
We had structured it around this Russia collusion thing and that didn't work out.
Surprise. And so we now have to restructure it around the story of racism in this country.
Let me ask you this.
Is there a lot of racism in this country?
Some would say yes.
But does that look like, to you, the major story for 2019 and 2020?
Does it seem to you, as you look around, as you experience life, that one of your top 20 problems is racism in this country?
There has never been less racism in a country, in this country.
Well, maybe there's never been less racism in any country.
Have you ever been to New York City?
You really have to visit New York City once.
You have to walk down the street in Manhattan and see the legacy of the...
I was just reading about this, the Dutch settlement that became New York.
What characterized the Dutch settlement that eventually grew into New York is that they were open to everybody.
You could be a freed slave, you could be anything, any religion.
And as long as you had money and you were going to trade...
You're good. So New York was built on a tradition of major diversity.
If you got money, you're good.
That's the end of the story. And New York is still like that, amazingly.
It's the most inspirational place you'll ever be.
Just walk down the street in Manhattan.
Just walk down the street.
It's the most inspirational thing you'll see.
Just look around. You'll see people walking in groups, you know, going to lunch together, work groups.
It is as diverse as you can imagine.
And everybody seems to be getting along just fine.
We probably have the least...
Racist country we've ever had, and boy, were we racist.
The United States in the early days of the United States in the 60s, 70s, 80s, pretty racist place.
But we've done an amazing job, amazingly successful, on routing out racism.
Do you want to know how good it is?
Let me tell you.
This is a quote from AOC, a recent one, in which she's talking about racism to some crowd.
And here are the words she uses.
Now, before I read you AOC's description of the racism in the United States, let me tell you what a real problem sounds like when somebody's describing it.
Here's what a real problem sounds like.
There is a major fire burning down houses.
That's what a problem sounds like.
Bob was murdered.
That's a problem. There's a recession.
That's a problem. There's an earthquake.
That's a problem. There's a war.
That's a problem. Those are problems.
Do you know what all of these things have in common that are problems?
How easy they were to describe, right?
I could describe that real easily.
There's a war. Somebody got killed.
There's a recession. Now here's AOC trying to describe the problem of racism in the United States in 2019.
Quote, we need to talk about racism, its contours, its histories, where it manifests, how it's used, because like all winning political phenomena, whether good or bad in your opinion, they rely on coalition building.
So Trump relied on a coalition, and a core part of that coalition were racists, building a coalition with all sorts of other people that could be susceptible to racist views.
And there were blankets and layered and made people feel good about it not being a racist thing.
I'm going to read that again.
Remember, here's what real problems sound like.
Bob was murdered.
There's a fire.
There's a hurricane.
There's a recession.
There's a war.
Something blew up.
Those are what problems sound like.
This is what no problem whatsoever sounds like.
If you ever want to have a really bad problem, you want it to be like this.
You want a problem that doesn't exist until you use clever words to suss it out.
I'm not saying that racism doesn't exist.
I'm saying that if you have to try this hard to make your case, That's not in your top ten problems, folks.
It's really not. Let me read it again.
Because this is really sort of important.
AOC, I would argue, is the most effective communicator on this topic at the moment.
The most effective communicator.
And I've complimented her a lot.
Her communication ability, her ability to get a message across.
And this is the best she could do on her biggest topic.
We need to talk about racism, its contours, its histories, where it manifests, how it's used.
Because like all winning political fun, I'm not even going to finish.
If that's how you have to talk about it, you don't have an example.
Here's my take on racism in the United States.
If you have five opportunities, and because I'm white, I have access to all five, And because you're not white, you have access to three.
It's a racist country.
Because I have access to five things, you have access to three.
Except your three will work every time.
I'm saying three things that will definitely work versus five things that will definitely work.
Both of us have achieved a situation where we definitely have a path to a good life.
Definitely. You've got three of them.
I've got five of them.
Worst case scenario.
Now, I would argue that if you're black or brown or a woman, you might have an extra path that I don't have while maybe I have an extra path you don't have.
So there may be ways that there are companies looking to balance out their diversity.
there may be programs, scholarships, things like that that are not available to me, that might be available to you.
So if you live in a country that has plenty of paths that are just absolutely straightforward paths to success, racism isn't your biggest problem.
It isn't.
I would argue that people talking about racism might be as big a problem as racism.
Because the talking about racism is what makes you feel like it exists, feel like it's oppressive, feel like maybe you should be thinking about it more, feel like that's the way you should frame your life.
We've actually reached a point where the talking about the racism is what's ruining the country.
whereas the actual base racism...
When was the last time you saw racism in your daily life?
Seriously. I try to think of an example in my actual life where I saw a racist thing.
I saw a person make a decision based on race.
It just doesn't happen. I just don't see it.
And I would see it, because I would see people who would be making those decisions in private.
I'd see people saying, ah, we can't hire this person or whatever.
I just don't see it. I see people talking about it, though.
All right. Let's talk about...
Getting back to the question of the New York Times.
In a normal world, this would be if things worked sort of the way you would like them to work.
The story about the New York Times saying to its staff that they were going to change their main focus from Russia collusion reporting to racism reporting in the United States should tell you exactly what Breitbart, the way, was it Nolte?
I had a great article on this.
Yeah, John Nolte for Breitbart.
You have to read it. I just tweeted it so you can find it in my Twitter feed.
But he wrote about this and his framing was correct, which is essentially New York Times admitted that the news is fake.
That's what I saw. Now, other people are going to put other interpretations on this, because it is subject to interpretation.
But what I saw in this story, based on the actual words as reported for what the New York Times said to its staff, what the boss said, it looked to me like they were saying, we've got a framework for how we're going to present the news.
Now it's your job to go fill in the parts.
But the framework, I'm telling you, So the old framework was you've got to prove this collusion thing, so go find stuff to make that true.
Now the new thing is go find things that make this a racist country.
Guess whose problem that would be?
Right. The whole point of it is it's anti-Trump.
Because we don't have a gigantic racism problem as a country.
We really don't. We're damn good at this stuff now.
We're really good at it.
And we should pat ourselves on the back a little bit from being the worst of the worst racist country you could ever imagine to pretty darn good.
Still room to improve, but pretty darn good.
So I wouldn't lose sight of the fact that we've improved quite a bit.
More to go. All right.
So, here's something that you probably don't know because you're not in the business.
I've said this before. But there are news organizations that are called news makers.
News makers. And that's not every news organization.
And the best example I can give you is the Watergate scandal.
I forget the details.
But I believe the Watergate scandal, you all know, was broken by the Washington Post, right?
And who was it?
The two Everything's Worse and Watergate guys.
But I believe that's not the story.
I believe there was a publication that printed the story before the New York Post.
I'm sorry, not the New York Post, the Washington Post.
Yeah, Woodward and Bernstein in the Washington Post.
So our history is that the Washington Post broke the story.
But I believe there's a...
Somebody's going to have to fact check me on this.
I believe there was a smaller publication that actually broke the story first, but nobody cared because it was a smaller publication.
Think about that.
The entire Watergate scandal...
Only became a national scandal because of which publication covered it.
When a minor publication covered it, nobody cared.
But a bigger publication, if it's the New York Times, if it's the Washington Post, they're called newsmakers.
If they cover it, all the other press has to cover the fact that they covered it.
Because their coverage becomes the story.
So if a big publication makes something a story, then it's a story.
The New York Times just told you they were going to make out of nothing the story of racism in the United States.
They're going to make that story.
They're going to turn something that is sort of widely reported when there's, you know, incidents, they're going to turn it into a narrative, and that's going to be the story for the United States, because once the New York Times makes that the frame, the other major media has to either match it or talk about it.
So they've actually said now in a recorded thing that they built their model on a hoax, They complimented themselves at how well they covered the hoax.
I'm not making that up.
They actually complimented themselves for how well they covered a hoax.
They fooled the country for two years on one of the most important things this country has ever talked about, got every part of it wrong, at least in the big picture, it was wrong, and then complimented themselves.
I think they got two Pulitzers out of it.
And now they're saying we're going to make up a new kind of fake news about racism in the United States.
We're going to frame the president for it.
And we're going to make that the news of the country.
Now, you know this because you read right-leaning publications.
Many of you saw it on social media.
You saw it on Breitbart.
You saw it in different places. The people who follow only the left-leaning media Just think about this.
Do you think they're aware, even aware, that the New York Times just got caught admitting that they make up the news?
Do you think they're aware of that?
Nope. Nor will they be aware.
And so I was wondering, how will the New York Times respond to being outed as a completely fake organization?
Because that's what happened. The New York Times was revealed to not even be a news organization.
I don't think that's too strong a statement.
How are they going to respond?
And I realize today that the best way for them to respond is to just not say anything.
Just ignore it.
Because you know what happens if the New York Times ignores a story?
It doesn't become a story.
They can ignore it forever.
They just have to pretend it didn't happen.
And it will never become part of the national consciousness.
It will just become one of these weird little conspiracy theories that people on the right, you know, seem to be subscribing to, like, you know, whatever.
You can just lump it in with the other conspiracy theories.
So the New York Times doesn't need to even address the biggest scandal in American journalism because they know you won't see it.
Not you, but their readers.
Their readers will never see that story.
Think about that. That's amazing.
And you're living it.
You don't have to wonder if it's true.
You're watching it in real time.
You're watching the news, not even pretend.
They're not even pretending they're the news anymore.
All right. So you got that going on.
Let's see. So...
Let's talk about Tlaib and Omar and Israel and all that.
So I guess Bill Maher has turned against the BDS movement and basically called them out.
Poor Bill Maher.
Now, I've said this before.
I respect Bill Maher because he is one of the few people in the public eye who I believe is capable of changing his mind based on evidence.
That's a weird thing to say, because people in the public eye, I mean, maybe some of you can do it, but people in the public eye kind of don't change their opinion no matter what evidence is presented.
You know, they're just sort of take a side.
But Bill at least can take positions on what would look like both sides.
So that suggests independence of thought.
And I believe he's changed his mind on major things in the past based on evidence.
So I'm going to give him props for being one of the few independent public thinkers.
Very unusual. Now, you may disagree with him on a lot of stuff, as I do as well, but that's a separate situation.
At least he's intellectually capable, which seems so special these days.
Now, so even he turned against the BDS people and saying that was a bad idea.
Now, Did you all see that Tlaib's statement about her being denied permission to visit Israel except to just visit her grandmother and not be political?
And she talked about how she was elected and it gave Palestinians hope when she was elected in the United States.
And I said to myself, am I reading this right?
I felt like I wasn't reading it right.
I felt like the words that were right on the page there were like, well, these must be scrambled somehow.
These words can't be in the order which I seem to be reading them in a sentence because I can't believe there would be an American politician who would blatantly put another nation or group of people, whatever you want to call them, ahead of the United States.
And she said it right out loud.
She made it pretty clear where her priorities were, and it wasn't with the citizens of the United States.
It was, in fact, with a group that are not exactly friends of the United States.
Now, to say that out loud and to say it clearly is shocking.
And I don't think the president's had too many weeks of his life that are better than this one.
Because the president is just having a terrific time exploiting this opportunity.
Because, first of all, it's just a terrible look for the squad.
The squad is looking very bad in this.
Because most Americans are pro-Israel.
And they're certainly anti-terrorists.
And I don't think that the squad is looking good here.
So I tweeted this morning.
This was my tweet.
I said, can someone remind me which politician is the anti-Semite?
Is it the one Israel named a settlement after or the one Israel banned from entering the country?
Now, remember, I always talk about your filter on life and whether it can predict.
Whose filter on life predicted that this president...
It would be a great friend to Israel and Israel would like him like no other president before.
Which filter said that would be the case?
Well, mine and most of your filters.
Because my filter says that the president is not a huge racist and that other countries would easily recognize this because why would other countries easily recognize it?
Because they don't have our press.
Because other countries have access to other forms of information, and they don't automatically believe the press in the United States.
So they just look at the situation and they say, well, this president moved the embassy to Jerusalem.
Okay. This president says, you know, he recognizes the Golan Heights as Israel.
All right. Okay.
All right. This president is super friendly with Netanyahu and talks glowingly all the time about Israel and does everything for its defense and, you know, cracks down and stops funding of the Palestinians because they're, you know, pro-terrorism, etc.
All right. This president goes after Iran hard, cancels the deal, puts pressure on them, and Israel's like, all right, okay, all right.
Now, Israel sees what he's doing, they talk to him personally, and they say, he's our guy.
Love this guy, talking about President Trump.
Now, my view of the world incorporated all of that.
Not the details, I mean, I didn't know those specific policy things, but I did assume that Israel would have the same opinion I did eventually.
Now, if your view was that the president praised the tiki torch marchers who were chanting anti-Semitic things in Charlottesville, or even that your president supported white supremacists in general, who, as you know, are pretty anti-Israel, how did that model predict anything you're seeing With how Israel is responding to this president.
It doesn't. It's complete opposites.
They can't exist in the same world.
There can't be a world where the opposition to Trump, their worldview of what he says, does, and believes, that can't exist in the same world with Israel saying, hey, let's name a settlement after we like you so much.
They can't exist in the same world.
But people are going to have to deal with that.
And the situation with Tlaib Allowed the president to surface the issue of this BDS stuff, which I'd guess, if you did a survey of American voters, just voters, and so voters pay attention to the news more than people who don't vote, I would imagine. If you surveyed just voters and say, hey, voter on the street, what is the BDS movement?
How many would even know what that was?
10%? Would you guess 10% of voters would have even known what BDS was?
It stands for boycott, divest, I don't even know what the third word is, but it's essentially don't do business with Israel.
It's a movement to pressure Israel economically until they do what the Palestinians will want them to do.
Yeah. So the president has used this Tlaib visit as an excuse, an Omar visit, as an excuse to surface this issue, which is devastatingly bad for Democrats.
And as the president likes to say, the squad is becoming the face of the Democrats.
Now, part of the reason that they're becoming the face of the Democrats, sanctions, is the S in BDS. Thank you.
So it's boycott, divest, and sanctions.
So the president is raising this Democrat proposition.
It's not something all Democrats want.
It's something the squad wants and a few others.
And making it look like it's the face of the Democrats.
Because the Democrats are either going to have to defend it as part of their brand, or they're going to have to fight against it.
And either way, the president wins.
Either way. So if the Democrats are fighting with each other, he wins.
If they're accepting his framing of this as a major...
You know, Democrat brand element, then they lose the election.
It would be pretty tough to win an election with that brand on you.
So the president is having a great time with this.
And you've all seen his funniest tweet, right?
He said in a tweet, Representative Tlaib wrote a letter to Israeli officials desperately wanting to visit her grandmother.
Permission was quickly granted, whereupon Tlaib obnoxiously turned and turned the approval down.
A complete setup. The only real winner here is Tlaib's grandmother.
She doesn't have to see her now.
The only winner is Tlaib's grandmother, because she doesn't have to see her now.
Now, come on.
No matter how much you like or don't like this president, you get that that's funny, right?
There's no way that isn't funny, no matter what side you're on.
That's just pretty good.
If this were the same joke, anti-Trump, I'd still say it's pretty funny, as a joke goes.
So, the president likes to put a face on stuff.
This BDS stuff was just sort of a concept, right?
The president knows that you can't get attention for a concept, because concepts just don't grab our imagination.
But people do, and faces do.
and names.
So the president found a brand to put on this BDS.
And so they now have a famous brand spokesperson who the president will make sure stays in front of that issue.
So then the other thing that the president did was he tweeted, like it or not, Tlaib and Omar are fast becoming the face of the Democrat Party.
Cortez, AOC, is fuming, not happy about this.
So the president tweets that AOC is not happy that the other two members of the squad are getting all the attention.
Now, do you think the president knows the inner thoughts of AOC? No.
Do you think that the president knows that she's fuming about all the attention the other two are getting?
No, he doesn't know that, and in fact, she's probably not fuming about anything.
But, do you notice what the president is doing lately?
And if you haven't noticed this, it's kind of hilarious.
This is why you watch my periscopes.
I'm going to tell you something, that once you see it, you're going to slap your head.
You go... Oh my God, that's exactly what's happening.
All right, here's what's happening. The president has just been getting savaged for the allegations of being racist because, as the New York Times said to their staff, the country that is anti-Trump, the press that's anti-Trump, has decided that's going to be their story and they're just going to hammer this.
Now, what do you do when you're accused of being a racist?
What's your defense? Well, you could try to do non-racist stuff, and that helps a little bit, but it doesn't really help enough.
If you say, no, I'm not, then you're the person defending against charges of racism, which makes you a racist.
You can't defend charges of racism.
Nobody's ever done it.
And even Trump, who's the great persuader, even he can't defend against that particular charge because defending yourself just draws attention to it.
It's an indefensible position, and he was in it.
So what did he do?
He decided to claim that the Democrats are racist.
You can't defend against a charge of racism, but you can certainly charge other people with being racist, and you can charge them with being racist long enough and show evidence, and this whole BDS thing is a perfect fodder for that, because it's pretty strong evidence for the claim.
And so the president has decided to go after them, but he's not just going after them by calling them racists, which by itself would be the smartest thing you'd ever seen.
By the way, have you ever seen anybody do this?
In the history of people who have ever been called racists, have you ever seen anybody successfully take the claim and throw it back at the accuser in a way that people will say, huh, that's actually a pretty good point.
I've never seen it. I've never seen that.
If he gets away with this and it looks like it's starting to work, it will be one of the greatest political plays of all time.
And who knows? I'm not going to say it will because it might not work.
But here's the other thing he did.
What's the second thing that the Democrats always do to the president that he can't defend?
The first thing is you're a racist.
The second thing is they say they know what he's thinking and he's flipping out.
They say they can read his mind and he's got some bad thoughts in there.
They can say they can read his mind and he's flustered.
They can read his mind and he's fuming about something.
Right? You can't really defend against that because it's just somebody making claims about your inner thoughts and if you say, no, I'm not really thinking that, people don't believe it.
So what's he do? He writes a tweet and he says, like it or not, Tlaib and Omar are fast becoming the face of the Democratic Party.
Cortez, AOC is fuming, not happy about this.
Now, is that true?
No. It's not true that AOC is fuming about the attention the other two are getting.
She's probably happy for him. But the president is throwing back at the Democrats their two primary plays.
He's catching them and throwing them back.
And now they're going to have to deal with the wounded badger that they threw in Trump's backyard.
And Trump just picked up that wounded badger and threw it back in their backyard.
See how they play with it?
So they're going to have to deal with these two things.
Why are you acting so racist?
And why are your inner thoughts so crazy?
So watch the president go after their inner thoughts some more, because it's wonderfully, subversively, hilariously effective, because it's what they've been doing to him, and there's just no defense.
So he's got off a defense where we like him best, and he's on offense.
We like him best on offense.
All right. Let me see if I've talked about everything I've talked about here.
Oh, and then here's the other story.
So Google is demonetizing me to the point where it looks like they will successfully drive you off of YouTube.
So I didn't think that would be possible.
It looked to me at the start.
I thought that Google was going to demonetize my videos to the point where they didn't grow very quickly.
Or to the point where my revenue didn't increase very much.
But they've actually reversed it.
So where it went to...
It's probably down 30% recently.
And so now they just routinely demonetize all my content.
They don't add ads sometimes.
They hide it from recommendations.
And here's the thing.
It's no longer hidden.
Right? It's not hidden.
It's obvious that Google is reducing my impact on social media.
Completely obvious.
Now, why is that not a national story?
Put together what I told you earlier in my Periscope with this fact.
It is objectively absolutely true that a major media platform has destroyed the republic and taken freedom of speech effectively away, even though not technically in the constitutional sense because they're not the government, but effectively they've taken away my freedom of speech by demonetizing me and preventing me from being seen.
Now, what would make that an actual story?
Why is that not a headline in the New York Times?
Because they don't want it to be.
The only reason that's not the biggest story in the country, not just about me, but about other voices that are being similarly throttled back, the only reason it's not the biggest story in the country is because the news-making organizations have decided it's not.
So if New York Times never does a story on this, it's never a story.
It's like it doesn't exist.
If the Washington Post never covers it, it's like it doesn't exist.
And if they do cover it, but they say it's imaginary, then that's the story.
The New York Times can make me completely go away by running one story that says a crazy cartoonist thinks the world is trying to prevent him from being seen.
And then they can write a story.
They could just make up stuff.
And he's imagining in his fever dreams that everybody's against him.
And he's probably a conspiracy theorist because he thinks that even the social media platforms are making special rules just for him.
You can make it sound crazy pretty easily.
So if you think there's anything like a free press...
You have proof that that doesn't exist.
If there were a free press, the biggest story in the country would be that the social media platforms are running the country.
But they're not going to run that story because that's not bad for Trump.
All right. So just think about that.
Just hold in your head that the social media companies are operating with complete impunity because the few news organizations that are news makers, the ones who decide what is news, have decided not to make it news.
Just think about that.
Is that a bigger problem than anything else that's in the news?
The biggest news is that the news is broken, but the news can't report on the news being broken.
Because the news is broken.
So, that's all for today.
A live feed before New Hampshire Rally talked about updating the post office into a social media platform.
I've heard that idea. I forget who was it who came up with that idea originally.
But yeah, that's certainly something I'd want to look at.
All right. I'm going to talk to you all later.
And you have a great day.
I'm going to have a great day.
▲
Export Selection