All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 18, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
39:53
Episode 632 Scott Adams: HOAX #5
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody, come on in here.
I've been awake for hours.
What's your excuse?
I know why you're here.
It has something to do with the simultaneous sip.
That part of the day that gets the rest of your day going.
That dopamine hit that makes everything better.
And you don't need much to join in.
No, you don't. You already know.
You just need a cup or a mug or a glass, a stein, a chalice, a tanker, 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 of the simultaneous sip.
Oh, better than usual.
I've got a coffee warmer now.
It's changed my life.
Now my coffee stays warm.
How about that?
It's like, wow, is there anything we can't do in 2019?
We can keep coffee warm.
So, I tweeted earlier today that by my count, the latest hoax...
It is hoax number five.
Now, when I talk about the hoaxes, of course, there are so many to choose from, but I'm choosing just the media hoaxes.
So number one was the Russia collusion hoax.
Number two, the fine people hoax.
Number three, everything about Kavanaugh hoax.
Number four, the Covington kids hoax.
And number five is the latest chapter.
Which has been announced accidentally, accidentally announced by the New York Times.
So the coming year, the news will be wrapped around the new hoax, hoax number five.
And that says that Orange Man causes racism, not the fake news.
No, it's not the news that causes the racism.
No, it's President Trump, according to the news.
Now here's the question I ask you.
People keep asking me, you know, why do so many racists support President Trump?
Now, the quick answer is, um, conservatives always support Republicans?
Because I'm pretty sure it wouldn't matter who was running on the Democrat side.
Pretty much all the Democrats, you know, probably 95% of them would support whoever, just because Democrat.
Now, how is that not obvious?
And I wonder, is it really not obvious that all the conservatives, 95%, are going to vote Republican no matter who it is?
And vice versa.
So it has nothing to do with looking at their policies, looking at their personality.
There's some small number of people who are in the middle, but they're not the ones we're calling racists, right?
The ones who are the independents in the middle who could go either way.
Nobody calls them racists.
So, that's your answer.
Now, the question I ask is, if you were a racist, and you were trying to determine if President Trump was on your side, what news sources would you watch to believe that the President was on your side?
Well, you couldn't watch Fox News, because Fox News says that President Trump disavows racism.
They show the videos.
They're very consistent.
You wouldn't get that from Breitbart, because Breitbart calls out the fine people hoax, etc.
You would have to watch MSNBC and CNN in order to have the opinion that your own racist views somehow were compatible with the present.
Because that's not reported on any of the news sources that are the natural news sources from the right-leaning part of the country.
They don't report that.
That's never in their reporting.
They talk about how other people are saying it, but they don't report that there are facts to back it up.
So, the odd thing about the racists supporting President Trump is that the only place they could be learning this is from the left-leaning media.
It's the only way.
Now, ABC says that there have been 36 criminal cases that invoked Trump's name.
Whereas the number of criminal cases that evoked Obama or Bush before him was zero.
So what do you make of the fact that there are 36 criminal cases invoking Trump's name?
Where do the people who made those crimes, where did they get their information?
Where did they get their news?
Probably CNN. So...
When we're dealing in the next year with the hoax number five, which is the New York Times has announced, they're going to make the news in this coming year all about racism.
I saw the first take on it this morning.
They wrote an article. The headline says that the reason we don't have universal health care is racism.
I mean, they're really serious about making every story about racism.
Now, I didn't read the story because I don't feel like I need to.
Because whatever that story says, I just don't think it could possibly be actual news.
Whatever it says, it looks like it's just narrative, you know, pounded into a topical story.
So some people were suggesting that instead of hoax number five, I call the latest hoax, the one that says orange man causes racism, not the fake news.
Then I should call it racist hoax.
So it's a hoax that the president's racist.
But you never want to put racist right in your message, because as soon as people see the word, they're already thinking negative things about Trump.
So, I wouldn't use that word.
I would diminish their hoaxing to simple chapters.
Hoax 1, hoax 2, hoax 3, hoax 4, hoax 5.
If somebody wants to question you about why you're calling it hoax 5, You're going to have to explain the other four.
So that's good for you if you have to explain all the hoaxes that led up to this one.
Now, people are saying, how come I didn't include the Jussie Smollett hoax?
That was sort of a borderline for me.
I decided to leave it out because the hoaxer was Jussie Smollett.
And the people getting hoaxed were the media on both sides for a while, more the media on the left.
I don't think the media on the right ever quite fell for it, did they?
So in the Smollett case, the victims were the anti-Trump media.
They believed it.
Whereas the other hoax, those things are clearly things that they don't, at least unanimously, they don't believe.
So it's the difference between the news creating the hoax and spreading it versus them being victims of the hoax.
Smollett perpetrated the hoax on the media.
It wasn't the other way around. All right.
I'm starting a list of things you would have to believe in order to be a Democrat in 2019.
It's just a starter list, I'm going to add to it.
But here are some things you would have to believe.
You'd have to believe that Israel can't spot an anti-Semite.
You'd have to believe that Israel's not good at that.
Because they like Trump, and they don't like some Democrats such as Tlaib.
So in order to be a Democrat and buy into the whole sort of Democrat hoax-based narrative, you'd have to believe that Israel's not good at spotting anti-Semites.
You'd also have to believe that internal trade wars are good, whereas external trade wars are always bad.
Because they're doing an internal trade war, which is boycotting various companies that might donate to Republicans, donate to Trump.
So they have to think internal trade wars are good and external ones are bad.
I'm going to add to that list as we go.
So I've had a number of people talking about this Portland sporting event.
You heard about the sporting event in Portland?
So there were two teams.
One team, the Proud Boys, and there were others there, but mostly it was two teams.
The Proud Boys versus Antifa.
And they all showed up in the field and they wore their little uniforms and they had a contest.
Now the way you win the contest is not by how many people you beat up.
You win the contest by luring the other side into bad behavior that gets caught on camera.
Because if it's not on video, it didn't really happen, right?
That's the way we're built. If you don't see the video looping, it's like it didn't even happen.
So, that's how you keep score.
So the group that goaded the other side into doing things on video, and the on video is important, that looks bad, That's how you score.
So based on that, and based on the video I've seen, the Proud Boys won hard.
It looks like a complete victory for the Proud Boys.
Now, before my critics jump on me, I'm neither supporting nor condemning the Proud Boys.
I'm not making a comment about my opinion of them.
I'm simply saying that I'm watching the game like the rest of you, the game in Portland, and they won the game.
Because the way you score the game is by embarrassing video for your side versus the other side.
Now, I did see embarrassing video of Antifa attacking different people.
So somebody says, so you're for Antifa?
Our world is so stupid that if you don't say you're for somebody, you must be for the other team.
The nuance is gone.
So Proud Boys won that event.
As far as I know, there's no video showing them Starting a fight or being bullies, but there is plenty of video of Antifa doing all of those things.
So Proud Boys wins.
Congratulations to the Proud Boys.
Now, I asked a provocative question on Twitter.
I still don't have an answer because I've seen no reporting on it.
And here's the question.
As a percentage, are there more Black members of the Proud Boys, or are there as a percentage, more black members of Antifa?
Do you know the answer to that?
Because I don't.
I have no idea.
I'm pretty sure they both have black members, which is hard to explain, because in order to be a Democrat, you would have to also believe that black people are not good at spotting racism.
Do you believe that? Because to be a Democrat, you have to.
Because look how many...
There's not a lot as a percentage, but there are plenty of...
Not as a percentage, but there are plenty of black supporters of President Trump.
How do Democrats explain that?
The only way they can explain it is that they're either bought off...
Or all of them. Like every single black Republican has just paid off somehow.
You'd have to believe that.
Or you'd have to believe that black people are not good at spotting racism when it's right in front of them and so obvious you couldn't possibly miss it.
I just don't know how you buy into that.
All right. The latest fund is that Bill Maher came down on the BDS movement that's boycott, divest, and sanction Israel that Tlaib, Representative Tlaib, is behind.
And so Bill Maher sort of broke ranks, which is not that unusual.
He broke ranks with the Democrats to say that that was a dumb idea.
And So Tlaib has responded by saying that people should boycott Bill Maher's show.
Could this be any better?
Could anything be more fun than watching Tlaib say that people should boycott Bill Maher's show?
What the hell is wrong with that?
What is wrong with that?
Now, I don't think anybody should boycott his show.
In fact, I was watching it the other day, and it's very entertaining.
You can watch Bill Maher's show and disagree with his opinions and his politics and still enjoy the entertainment of it.
It was pretty funny when I watched it just last night, I guess, on recording.
All right. So Bill Maher apparently tweeted at the President, and he said, okay, sure, let's get right on that.
So he was responding to the President's tweet.
So here's what Bill Maher says.
This should blow you away.
Now, Bill Maher is like one of the biggest critics of the President, right?
He's one of the most vocal critics.
And Bill Maher says in a tweet, this is a fresh tweet.
But one other thing, Mr.
President, as long as we're talking.
This is Bill Maher. He says, if you were to do a total 180 on the environment and become the most dogged fighter we've ever had against climate change, pollution, and killing species, etc., I'd vote for you.
So Bill Maher is saying that if, on that one issue, if Trump became just a maniac about protecting the environment, that Bill Maher would vote for him.
Do you believe that? No, I'm not sure you can take that as a literal.
You know, I'm the one who always questions you against taking things literally, because obviously there are lots of variables in the world.
But I think I've been telling you for a while that it feels to me that Bill Maher is sort of teetering on the edge of becoming a Trump supporter.
I'm not going to predict it'll happen.
But I'm not going to be surprised if on Election Day 2020, Bill Maher says, you know, I hate a lot of things about this president, but look at the other person.
Sorry. You know, you might find that Bill Maher is a lot closer to Trump by Election Day than you ever thought was possible.
Now, one of the reasons, one of the things that would bind them is Bill Maher has to be noticing that That most of the arguments against Trump are literally just made up ridiculous BS and that he's being banged for being politically incorrect.
Imagine Bill Maher, whose TV show used to be named politically incorrect.
It's his brand.
What's Trump's brand?
Politically incorrect. They literally have the same brand.
It's hard for me to imagine that there's so much distance between them.
Now, remember, they've had some, I guess, some personal dust-ups in the past.
So some of it's personal.
You can't really score that.
Here's my other favorite story.
It's being reported, and I don't know that you could consider this credible.
Whenever you hear a quote from From people who were not recorded at the time, usually you should say the quote is not necessarily credible.
It might be accurate, but you can't really believe quotes unless you see them on video, hear them on video, and even then it could be a deep fake.
But if you're just hearing somebody said somebody said something, that's the lowest level of credibility.
But, that said, the story says That Obama told Biden that he, quote, didn't have to run.
Didn't have to run.
And I think everybody's seeing that language and they're saying, well, if I were to parse that choice of words, and here's the part we don't know, did Obama use those exact words?
Because that's sort of being reported like those were his exact words or something so close to it that it's effectively exact words.
Do you think that Obama told Biden that he didn't have to run?
Because if you tell your spouse, you know, honey, you don't have to go with me to the whatever.
What does your spouse say?
Your spouse doesn't say, oh, you're so nice.
You're giving me the option of going with you or not going with you.
No. If you tell your spouse, you know, honey, you don't have to go with me.
You're kind of telling your spouse to stay home.
That's how your spouse will take it.
Even if you're not thinking it, that's how your spouse is going to take it.
So this wording, which again, I'm not sure what's his exact wording.
Obama has allegedly said that you don't have to run.
If Obama told Biden that he really didn't have to run, he was kind of trying to discourage him.
So that's interesting.
I do believe that Obama has got some deep concerns about his legacy with Biden.
So that's probably just about all I had to talk about.
So I'm having a lot of people who, you know, people live in a binary world.
So in our binary world, you either love the president or hate the president.
You can't be in between. You're either a Democrat or you're a Republican.
You're a socialist or you're a capitalist.
You know, we like to put things in two categories.
So when I've been talking about Antifa, people like to jump in and say, Antifa hasn't killed anybody yet.
Now, I know you can argue about that because of the Dayton shooter.
But the Dayton shooter was probably just mentally ill.
I don't think his association with Antifa was important.
But my critics are saying, oh, so if you're saying Antifa is bad, you must be in favor of the other side.
Therefore, you must be in favor of fascists.
Here's what I say when people tell me that if I'm against Antifa, I must be, therefore, logically, in favor of fascists.
Here's what I say.
Your moral superiority is noted.
Your moral superiority is noted.
I personally, and then I follow up with, I personally lump Intifa and neo-Nazis and you, you being the person who is challenging me, in the same group.
I put you all in the same group.
You're all completely condemnable for different reasons.
But for those people who can rank Head injuries over murder, and that's what people are doing.
The people who are pro-Antifa are saying, hey, Antifa hasn't killed anybody.
They've only caused brain damage several times.
It's just brain damage.
You can't get worked up about brain damage compared to killing.
The other side is killing or has killed.
To which I say, I acknowledge your moral superiority.
If you can rank giving people brain damage on purpose as a higher moral plane than killing somebody, good for you.
You just go ahead and do that.
Personally, I put them in the same category.
Personally, I don't slice at that fine.
But if people want to, you should praise them for their moral superiority.
And then put them in the same group as the neo-Nazis.
All right. My tweet that's getting the most retweets this week was, I said in 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 their country?
How do the Democrats process that?
Because they're so sure that President Trump sided with the Charlottesville tiki torches who are anti-Semitic.
How do they deal with the fact that Israel is naming a settlement after him and his opponent in Congress, Tlaib, isn't even allowed in their damn country?
How do they process that?
Like, what mental machinations do you have to do to imagine that Israel can't figure out who anti-Semites are?
Pretty sure they can do that.
I have confidence in them.
All right. The amazing thing about this New York Times story is that it's not a story, except in one half of the country.
Imagine, if you will, that the New York Times got caught on a secret recording telling their news crew, you know, the newsroom, How to cut the news for the next year before the events actually happen.
So to tell them to frame things in a racial frame.
That story is definitely bigger than Watergate.
Am I wrong? It is not the New York Times getting caught on audio saying that they're going to form the news and create a narrative in the coming year.
They're not even talking about the past.
They're talking about their plan for the coming year.
Do you think that's bigger than Watergate or smaller?
Because Watergate, for all of its badness, wasn't that big a deal.
I mean, it was a crime.
I'm glad that Nixon had to go.
I'm glad that everything that happened had to happen.
But if you were to rank somebody breaks into an office of the other team, Versus a major news organization that we trust has decided to rip the country apart through bogus narrative about racial problems, and you catch that on tape, that feels at least ten times bigger, right?
Or a hundred times bigger.
It doesn't even feel in the same way.
Am I wrong? It doesn't feel like it's even anywhere in the same category.
Now, part of it is that I don't think Watergate, for all of its badness, and again, Nixon was bad, he had to go, but the actual crime was that he didn't lie about something involving a break-in for an office that got some documents that probably didn't make much difference.
I'm not defending any of it.
I'm just saying that on the list of big problems, it was kind of small.
Nixon had to go.
It was big enough that you had to get rid of the president, but it was kind of small.
Ripping the country apart using the most trusted media source, at least trusted by people on the left, is maybe Hitler-level evil, wouldn't you say?
What other organization, Intentionally called a meeting to whip up racial animosity in a country.
When was the last time anybody did that?
Well, there was George Wallace, I suppose.
But, you know, Hitler. Now, this is one of those cases where the Hitler analogy isn't too far off.
You know, normally I would mock people for making it.
But in the narrow sense of intentionally forming a meeting, And agreeing in the meeting that you're going to drive the country apart with racist narrative independent of the actual news That sort of leads you to really bad things.
Now, so let me pull back on this a little bit.
There's nothing quite like Hitler.
There's nothing like the Holocaust.
So anything you compare to that is just sort of ridiculous on its surface.
But in terms of a similar strategy of using race to divide people for power...
I mean, the reason that the New York Times doesn't is for profit and power.
And it seems at least as evil, you know, minus the murders.
So, at least in the philosophical sense, it's completely condemnable.
But here's the amazing thing.
How much is the New York Times story being reported on the left?
At all? Did CNN and MSNBC even cover it?
They may have mentioned it.
They may have said, oh, there's a secret recording.
Here's a link to it.
But do you think they framed it the way Fox News, the way Breitbart, et cetera, framed it?
Probably not. It's the biggest story by far.
Name one story that's bigger than that.
I mean, you know, there have been bigger stories.
You know, North Korea was a big story when we were, you know, it looked like we were on the edge of war.
But at the moment, what's a bigger story than the New York Times admitting they make up the news?
There's nothing bigger than that, because that affects everything.
So, That's amazing.
Now, I woke up this morning and I wanted to get the score of the big game.
You know, the big game meaning Proud Boys versus Antifa.
The costumed event, sporting event that happened in Portland.
So I open up CNN. Do you know how much coverage CNN had of the mass protests in Portland?
None. None.
Nothing. Not a single link to a story on their front page.
None. Now, I don't know if it was buried in some subsidiary page, but it's not on the entire front page.
So I went to MSNBC to see how much the Portland protests were covered.
Guess how much?
None. There was a major, semi-violent, a little bit violent, protest in a major city, And it wasn't even a headline.
Now, I went to Fox News, and sure enough, it wasn't like their top story, but right near the top, there was a link to giving an update.
Now, think about that.
All the poor bastards who depend on the news, the left-leaning news, they're not even getting news.
Those poor, poor bastards have no idea what's going on.
Think about it. Those poor bastards don't know what's happening.
They really don't.
Because there are news sources not telling them, and they're not going to go to Breitbart to read about it.
They have no idea.
It's the biggest story in the country.
Nope. Don't know anything about that one.
All right. Well, it's amazing and head-shaking.
And, you know, even I am going to just sort of shake my head and walk away from it.
Because there's not much you can do about it.
You know, I can tweet about it and talk about it, but I'm only going to be tweeting and talking to that narrow silo of people who follow me who already know about it.
I can't get out of my silo, partly because social media platforms are going to throttle me if I try, but nobody's going to read it anyway.
So there's this gigantic black hole of knowledge One side of the country and there's no mechanism to fix it because the news won't give them news and The people telling them that the news isn't giving them news are invisible to them because the platforms just sort of keep us apart Partly by choice and partly by algorithm I was thinking trying to think of ways to counter The hoax five.
So hoax five, for those of you just joining us, is the idea that the orange man causes racism, not the fake news and the way they cover it.
And so it's the fifth of the major hoaxes.
It's like chapter five.
If this were a chapter book, this would be chapter five, the other hoax.
So here's a way to, I was thinking of reframing the whole racism thing.
Imagine if Trump supporters had a t-shirt that said nationalism versus racism.
Now, smart people will say, wait a minute, those are not like opposites, because a racist could be anybody.
It could be a nationalist, it could be a non-nationalist.
You know, those don't even make sense.
It doesn't make sense to say nationalism versus racism.
It's sort of like saying banana versus the color purple.
Like, Banana and a color don't compare.
It doesn't make any sense. But we live in a stupid world in which people think in terms of words.
The main power of Antifa is their name.
If they change their name, they would have to go away tomorrow.
Because if it wasn't anti-fascist, They would just be fascists.
It's literally the name of the organization.
It's the only reason they get away with what they do.
Because we're so dumb as a society that the word influences us.
Anti? Oh, well, I guess I must be on your team.
You're anti something I'm anti.
So I was thinking if it were framed as nationalism versus racism, that's not so bad because you can't really be a good nationalist if you're also a racist, seems to me.
Because the whole point of nationalism is that you're protecting your team, the people in your nation.
How could you be a nationalist and a racist?
You could be a white nationalist, but bad news, it's way too late.
How in the world?
What are you going to do?
Ship back 45% of the country to wherever you imagine they belong?
How would that even work?
So, nationalism, without the white part, versus racism.
Nah, it's not patriotism versus racism, because there are patriots on both sides.
But I think people would agree that the nationalists are all on one side.
And nationalism...
By its nature is anti-racism.
Am I wrong? I'm not talking about white nationalism.
I'm talking about just nationalism.
Nationalism by its nature is to protect the people in the border, the people who are already here, and there are all kinds of people.
So how could you say protect all these different kinds of diverse people and be a racist?
Doesn't make sense. They're opposites.
So that's why the anti-Trumpers have to throw the white in there to make it white nationalist so that they can turn it into white supremacists, so they can turn it into Hitler, so that they have to use word association to turn nationalist into something bad.
So I'm just putting that in there.
Nationalism versus racism.
If we started thinking of it that way, then you'd have to take teams.
I was actually thinking of This is not a serious suggestion, but it just gives you an idea of how important words are.
If Trump supporters founded a group called anti-racists, but they were mostly nationalists, but they called the group anti-racist, who would oppose them?
Because if you oppose the group that's anti-racist, what are you?
Right? So if there were a Republican group named anti-racist, it would be very effective.
I don't see it happening. I'm not suggesting it will.
But it just tells you how the words work.
Anti-ra. Anti-ra.
Anti-ra to be against anti-fa.
Now it seems to me that the anti-fa are racist by definition.
Because their view of the world is a race filter.
If the way you see the world is race, it's your primary filter, I think you're racist by definition because it's how you see the world.
If your primary definition of the world is America or nationalism, you're the opposite because you can't really be a good American.
I don't know how you could support the Constitution where it says very clearly we're all equal if you don't believe that.
So, in order to be a nationalist and a patriot and a good American, you would have to be not a racist.
So, just putting that out there.
All right.
Lemon drop.
So anti-Ra versus anti-Fa.
Yeah.
It might work. Anti-Ra is pretty good.
You should reread the Constitution.
Should I? What am I going to miss?
You know, I'm seeing some pushback when people...
I saw some people say that the United States and the founders founded the United States on a white supremacist basis.
What do you say to that? Do you think it's true or false that the United States...
The founders, the fathers of the country, because most of them were men, do you think that it was a white supremacist nation?
Now, most of you are calling bull.
No way! No way!
No way! So I'm reading this book, American Nations, which is just history.
It's not really trying to push an agenda.
It's just telling you what happened.
If you read the history...
It looks like all...
Not exactly white supremacists.
It was wealthy supremacists.
So the founders did believe, both North and South, that some people were special.
And it had a lot more to do with your money and your status than it did with anything else.
So the thing that we often forget is that the founders of the country...
And I don't mean the ones who signed the Constitution, but the early important people in the country, in the colonies, enslaved white people and black.
If you were an indentured servant and you were white, you're basically a slave.
You know, the actual African slaves had it worse, but the white people were slaves too.
So we were a slave country.
It's just that everybody was a slave and the rich people had everything.
And they built a constitution that said, hey, how about rich people get to keep everything, including their slaves?
That's sort of what they did.
The constitution was really about the rich people getting to keep their stuff.
So you can love this country and be a patriot and all that, but you don't have to run from the history.
The history is a bunch of white supremacists, but the most dominant part of their thinking is Beyond the fact that they were white supremacists, the dominant part of their thinking was money and special people.
But the special people were anybody rich.
So, I would say true to the claim that the United States was founded on a white supremacist philosophy.
Not true that it still is.
It's perfectly fine to say things used to be bad, but they got better.
So I'm going to say true to the country being a white supremacist platform that improved over time, and I would say that the Trump form of nationalism takes it to right where it needs to be.
Nationalism is anti-RA, right?
Hashtag anti-raw, because they're anti-racist.
Alright, that's enough for now.
Why don't you go have a great day?
A great day, because I'm going to have one.
▲
Export Selection