Episode 1014 Scott Adams: The Strategy of the Protestors and Where it is Heading
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Our "news" is social programming
Witnessed conversation of police concern over Floyd's breathing
Competing autopsies
Democrat lives are being destroyed by their own team
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good to see you, Omar. Good to see the rest of you.
Well, what a night.
What a night. You know, you think the news will slow down, but the news just keeps on coming.
June is always such a crazy month because everybody's schedule changes, and the weather changes, and suddenly stress is through the roof, and why aren't those kids in school?
So I'm going to guess that for many of you, your stress level's a little bit high.
Anybody? Anybody? A little bit of stress?
Well, I'm here to bring it down.
Let's bring it down. Let's bring down that stress.
Because we will get through this.
We get through everything.
But you know what really helps?
You know what really, really helps is a simultaneous sip.
And all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the dopamine hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It practically cured the pandemic already.
Don't hear much about it.
And now, the simultaneous hip is going to take on the protests and the riots and the looting.
Yeah. Watch them go down.
Go! I don't want to get all scientific, but I'm willing to guarantee that in one year, Thanks to that sip, there will be less rioting.
That's right. You can check it.
Check it a year from now.
See if I'm not right.
A year from now, on this date, there will be fewer riots because of the simultaneous sip.
If you don't know how cause and effect works and you think it's just a correlation, well, you've got a lot of scientific learning that you need to do.
Well, yes, a chalice.
That's right. I said jealous, didn't I? Let's talk about all the news.
The top story, I think, is that the Oakland Zoo had a report that their tigers got out.
So that actually happened in my neighborhood.
So how would you like to live in a neighborhood where don't go outside because, you know, the Climate change might kill you, and the riots might kill you, and one more thing.
There's a tiger loose in your neighborhood.
That's all we're saying.
Just stay safe. Just watch out for Antifa.
If anybody throws a brick, make sure you duck, and watch your back.
There might be a tiger. Turns out that was a fake report.
And I give great respect to whoever the prankster was who started the rumor that the animals got out of the Oakland Zoo.
Because that's what happened.
It was just a rumor. There were no animals that got away from the Oakland Zoo.
But for a while, that was a local story.
And I don't know what's wrong with me that the world can literally be burning.
But when somebody plays a prank like the tiger got out of the zoo, I don't know.
If you can't laugh at that, we've already lost civilization.
Alright, here's a little update.
Do you remember that paper that was published that showed that masks don't work because if you cough through the mask, it doesn't stop the virus?
Do you remember that paper?
Well, it turns out that that paper that...
Caused a lot of the experts to say that masks don't work has been retracted because it turns out it was all bullshit.
It was just all bullshit.
It wasn't even close to science.
It was all bullshit.
So it's been retracted.
So how do you feel about your experts?
How do you feel about those experts now?
And, you know, I'm going to say again, I think I was the first public person to call bullshit on masks not working.
Now if anybody said it before I did, I haven't seen it yet.
Because I think it was kind of risky when all the experts, all the experts, literally all the experts were saying that masks don't work and they had science.
Look at our science!
And by the way, I just hope you can appreciate My complete lack of embarrassment.
That I would say publicly and loudly and often that every expert in the world and all their science were wrong.
And of course I was right.
I was right. It was obvious I was right.
I didn't have to do any science.
It was kind of obvious. But I would just like to claim that for the rest of my life as the thing that in some ways I'm most proud of.
Now, I'm not most proud of it because I realized it, because I think there must have been millions of people who said the same thing.
There had to be 100 million people who said some version of, if the virus is in the droplets and the mask stops droplets, explain to me how they don't work.
How do they not work?
Because you touch your face more?
Because when I put my mask on, I touch my face less.
I touch it through the mask, but I touch my face less.
So, anyway, the part I'm proud of is that I had worked on my ego to the point.
This is an important lesson, actually.
I'll embed this little important lesson in my otherwise fun presentation.
The important lesson is that I was able to publicly say something that I think anybody else in the world would have been embarrassed to say in public.
Because it's pretty embarrassing to say every scientist and expert in the world is wrong because, hey, I'm a cartoonist, so trust me.
And that's what I did.
That's exactly what I did, loudly.
Went my way this time.
Might not always go my way, but the point is that the key talent in my talent stack was the working on my ego.
In other words, being able to embarrass myself at an extreme level.
I mean, that would be extremely embarrassing if it had gone the other way.
If it turned out that masks were killing people and it turned out there was lots of confirming science to that or that it didn't work at all, pretty embarrassing for me.
It wasn't an obstacle.
All right, some more stuff.
I think the country needs a common enemy.
Because sometimes that's the only thing that stops you from fighting with each other.
I have a theory that humans need a certain amount of conflict.
In other words, we're just genetically and all the way to our base code of our DNA, we need conflict.
We're sort of a conflict species.
If we don't have a war, we'll start one at home.
If we don't have one at home, we'll start one somewhere else.
We kind of need to fight.
We're just fighting people.
And you can either try to deny your nature, or you can try to engineer something productive to work with, using your nature in a positive way.
The reason capitalism works is that it understands people are selfish and greedy.
Right? Capitalism works Because it understands people are horrible.
We're selfish and greedy.
But it's a system that harnesses selfishness and greed and turns it into gold.
Best system you could ever have.
How about democracy?
People are stupid, fearful, tribal, and don't care about their neighbors.
But... Democracy lets everybody have their little selfish vote, and because we accept the credibility of the system, it turns all this ignorance and bad intention into gold.
You get the United States.
You get the Constitution. So a good system can turn horrible things into something good.
And we do it all the time, right?
You know, fertilizer is used to grow...
Literally, poop that comes out of cows is used to grow new food.
So you can turn bad things into good things.
It's very common. And right now we have all this angry energy.
Lots of angry energy in the country.
And right now it's just sort of directed in every direction.
Everybody's angry at just sort of a variety of things.
What we need is one good common enemy.
I recommend Antifa.
Antifa is the common enemy of black people.
It's the common enemy of anybody who likes civilization because they are anti-civilization.
They're literally trying to devolve civilization to the point of starvation.
No, they don't say it in those words, but basically that's it.
They don't have an end game.
They just want less of everything.
And what you get when you destroy things is that outcome.
So I would say that all the people who want economic prosperity, who want a fair world, who want jobs, are on the same side.
So if you are black and you want jobs and a good society and all those things that, say, Martin Luther King would have wanted, If you want any of that stuff, Antifa is your mortal enemy.
And it's certainly the mortal enemy of the right, the political right.
I would say it should be the mortal enemy of the liberal, let's say the moderate liberals.
So I would say Antifa should be our common enemy.
If you take them out of the mix, everything looks different.
Here's a question for you.
I have not seen any reporting yet on which red states, or actually red cities, are rioting.
Does anybody have any statistics on Republican-controlled cities?
Are there any? I don't know.
Is there even a Republican-controlled city anywhere?
Is that even a thing? Are there any Republican-controlled cities that are having problems?
Why is there no reporting on that?
That feels like the most obvious thing you would see reporting on.
I don't think I've seen any.
Somebody says, what about white supremacy?
As a common enemy?
White supremacy would be a great common enemy if you could find any.
Right? If you could find any white supremacy, let me know.
I'll be your common enemy.
I don't like white supremacy.
But if you find any...
Find a person or anything like that.
But there's not enough of them.
You need a common enemy where you can actually find one.
Good luck finding a white supremacist.
Except in your imagination and under your bed.
I'm sure there are three or four in the country somewhere, but otherwise it's mostly imaginary.
There's lots of racism.
It's just the supremacy part is the part that went away.
And by the way, the reason white supremacy doesn't exist, again, this is the cartoonist who has no ego, and I will shame myself in public by saying, you think there are white supremacists?
I don't think you've ever talked to one.
Because if you talk to anybody who is just a plain racist, they will tell you that white people are not supreme.
In fact, that's a big part of the racism.
is that they're worried they'll lose ground to groups that they think will just do better than them.
So regular racism is the opposite of supremacy.
Regular racism, at least the way it's expressed by most white Americans who are racist, is a sense of inferiority.
If you don't understand that, That it comes from a sense of sort of inferiority, don't think you can compete, then you don't really understand the situation.
In many cases, yeah, everybody's different, of course, but in many cases it's more like the opposite of white supremacy.
It's more like white insecurity, white inferiority, or at least feelings of inferiority that are driving a lot of it.
All right, that's just my opinion.
All right. Does it seem to you like the news is not showing you the news?
More than usual?
I was making this observation that the best video footage we have of the riots and looting are coming from individuals with phones.
And all of the footage that's just sort of generic and it's behind the lines and it's too far away or it's shot from a helicopter, all of the generic stuff is coming from the news networks, partly because I don't think they can get too close to the action.
The police keep the The professional news crews away.
So, as a result, I'm left with this question.
Do you think that the media has made a collective decision?
Maybe they've even communicated.
Maybe the government's communicated with them.
It's possible. Do you think that the media has made a decision to show less of the violence?
What do you think? Because it looks like a decision.
It looks like there's a decision to just not showcase As much of the violence as they possibly could.
Because it would be real easy for any of the news networks to just run a montage like Andy Ngo.
If you're following him, you'll see video after video of pretty shocking things coming out of the riots.
So it would be easy to find them.
I mean, any of the networks could easily find all of these videos.
But they don't run them.
They do some, but it feels like there's some kind of conscious decision, and I don't know where it comes from.
Maybe they independently just figure it's good citizenship to tamp down the number of visuals that they're doing.
But I don't know if they are intentionally suppressing the news to manage the situation.
Do you feel like that's what's happening?
Oh, somebody says that Tucker aired some of the footage last night.
Yeah, but of course Tucker is an opinion show and he can do whatever he wants.
But I think that Fox News, as a general statement, is also not showing the full degree of it that you can see on Twitter quite easily.
So I ask you this question.
Does the news business have a responsibility to show you what's happening, even if it's awful, and even if it would cause you to act in a certain way?
Or does the news business have a responsibility like a government in which they're trying to manage how you act by managing what they show you?
Because it looks like they're trying to manage how we act By managing what they show us.
Lowering the amount of graphic images.
I don't know if that's a bad thing.
Do you? I mean, what's your opinion?
Is that a bad thing? Because if it's well-meaning, and there's no good that could come from it, you could argue that that's just being good citizens.
There's no reason to unnecessarily show you images that will get you worked up, and nothing good can come from it.
I just have an open question of whether it's a conscious decision by the networks.
There was a story that I saw yesterday that now I'm wondering if it's true.
Can somebody do me a fact check on this?
And I would be surprised that somebody hadn't gotten to me directly.
Yesterday I saw a report, which today I'm wondering if it was fake news.
So I'm hoping somebody could confirm or deny this.
I thought I saw that the autopsy showed fentanyl and also meth in the body of George Floyd.
Is that true?
Because that would be like a gigantic story That didn't seem to be in the news today.
I saw it on Twitter, but not in the news.
Let's see. While you're trying to come up with that, fentanyl, George Floyd...
Because I'd hate to be spreading that rumor if that was fake news.
So the headlines say, interesting, asphyxiation.
But let's see if they also say...
Can you tell me? It takes a little while for the...
They do this all the time.
Just to see if there's fentanyl in this story.
Family finding.
Neck compression.
God, I wonder if that was fake news.
Or if they're intentionally not reporting it.
Alright, I'm looking at your comments to see.
Do you guys know? What happened to this news?
So I'm seeing a bunch of yeses and trues, but it doesn't seem to be showing up in the news.
I'm looking at a long article about it.
I wonder how far down I have to get before I would mention it, being that it's the most important thing in the news.
Well, I guess I'll have to look that up.
I'm not going to say any more about it.
Until I confirm it's true.
So somebody says Newsweek is reporting it, NBC and Wall Street Journal.
Okay. So it's not headline news, is it?
Are you seeing anybody reporting it as a headline?
Or is everybody reporting it as a somewhere down in a long story, it's just a word?
Alright. There are two autopsies.
Oh, TMZ reported it, then it's probably true.
You know what's weird? Use this standard and be surprised how often it's true.
If I say I saw some news on TMZ, what's your first reaction?
Oh, it's probably like the National Enquirer, right?
And you're thinking, well, it could be something that's true, but it could be something they just totally made up.
That might be your first impression because TMZ is sort of in that entertainment, gossipy realm.
But it's the opposite.
I've told you this story before.
There was once some fake news about me, and it was big headlines for a while.
I won't go into it, but it was just fake news.
And TMZ is the only outlet that called me home to ask me if it was true.
Nobody else asked.
They're the only ones who asked me if it was true.
And then I told them the story, and then they said, oh, okay, it wasn't true.
And then they didn't run the story on it.
So watch how often TMZ is the most accurate news source because apparently they don't have any motive to make up news because their news is already interesting.
So TMZ doesn't have to make up news.
Because the only news that they cover is stuff that's interesting, no matter what it is.
So they end up, just by an accident of what their business model is, by accident they end up being the most reliable source of news because they're the only ones who don't have any reason to make up news because it's already interesting or else it wouldn't be in TMC. All right.
So, enough of you are confirming the fentanyl story.
So, I said this yesterday in a special video, but some of you only watch the morning ones, so I'll repeat it.
Everything you know about the George Floyd story, you have to reassess.
And here's why.
On day one, you said to yourself, this is obviously murder.
I watched it with my own eyes on video, and I watched as this white cop...
With that chocolate on my arm, what a mess I am.
I watched as this white cop put his knee on a black man who was clearly already subdued and kept it there until that man died.
We all watched that. Now you say to yourself, what are the odds that George Floyd coincidentally died, just by coincidence, at exactly the same time he was being strangled by a cop?
And so your common sense says, well, let me do the odds.
The odds of somebody dying, by coincidence, exactly at the same time they're being strangled, is about zero.
So, therefore, it was the strangulation of the knee that killed him.
Common sense. Logic.
Smart people follow the odds.
Then we find out he had fentanyl in his system.
Now, not all of you are fentanyl experts.
I, unfortunately, know a lot about fentanyl because my stepson died in his system.
One of the things I know is that fentanyl makes it difficult to breathe, as does meth, I believe.
I'm not sure about the meth, but fentanyl does.
So fentanyl will make you have difficulty breathing.
Now, if you have difficulty breathing, And I heard this from some experts.
If you're a fentanyl user, let's say you're a junkie, an addict, you have learned that if you were to fall asleep on fentanyl and your head goes down, you might constrict your own breathing and not wake up.
In other words, you'll just asphyxiate yourself by just falling asleep because your neck's in the wrong position.
Now, if you were simply drunk and you fell asleep with your neck in the wrong position, you would do something like this.
And you would just wake up.
So the difference between being on fentanyl and being just inebriated with some other drug is that if you're inebriated with another drug and your breathing gets cut off, it kind of wakes you up.
So it doesn't kill you.
On fentanyl, you don't wake up.
You just don't breathe.
You just don't breathe. And then you die because you're not breathing.
So the responsibility of the police is Is to be smarter than us.
Scott is an idiot.
We'll get rid of you.
The responsibility of the police, of course, is to be smarter than the public.
And the public would not know that if somebody had maybe fentanyl in them...
And remember, the police would assume that a great many people that they stop who have symptoms of being under the influence...
The police would know that maybe half of them have fentanyl.
The percentage of people who look like they're in that condition who have fentanyl in them is very high.
I think maybe half at this point.
So if you were a police officer, you knew there was maybe a 50% chance he had some fentanyl in him, even if he had other stuff too.
You knew that fentanyl was a breathing issue.
You would be concerned about what position you put the perpetrator in, because it might exacerbate the breathing issue, and you certainly wouldn't want to put a knee on a neck for somebody who had a breathing issue.
You wouldn't want to be on their back, etc.
But it turns out that we learned today, according to the reporting of CNN, that the police officers were having a conversation about, and if you haven't heard this...
It's the biggest news of the day.
The police officers, it was reported, I think by witnesses, that they had a conversation while they had him down about how to keep him alive and specifically mentioned the risk of sudden death from being in the wrong physical position and being in a certain drug state.
Did you hear that?
The police who had George Floyd down and were on top of him.
The three of them had a conversation which was witnessed in which they talked about making sure he didn't die accidentally by being in the wrong position and being in a drug state.
And there's actually a name for it which they used.
So in other words, the police were medically aware That the perpetrator's position and his drug state was a risk for sudden death.
And they talked about how to prevent it, and the one who's been charged said he's the one who won the conversation, and he said that's why he's on his stomach.
In other words, he was on his stomach specifically to prevent, and they said it out loud, specifically to prevent Accidental, sudden death.
Now, I see you screaming in the comments, nine minutes!
But he kept his leg on there, nine minutes.
Now, I'm with you.
What I watched looked like a crime.
What you and I watched looked like a crime.
And until there's a trial, I'm going to assume that there was a crime.
But, if you think that the guys on the back Let me put it this way.
If the intentions of the police officers are part of the charge, in other words, you have to intentionally kill somebody to get murdered, one, I think, that is disproved.
So the evidence disproves intention.
In fact, the evidence proves that, at least verbally, They were negotiating on how best to keep him alive.
So if there's evidence that these three cops were talking about how best to keep him alive and to prevent the very thing that happened, good luck with the conviction.
I think you might get a conviction with the one who had his knee on the neck because you could certainly make the case that no matter what, that was the wrong thing to do.
Now, what I've said is that even I, as not an expert and not a cop, Even I knew that somebody who probably, or at least had a high likelihood of having fentanyl in them, even I knew there would be a breathing issue.
So even I would not have taken the risk that those cops took.
But would you have known that?
How many of you would have known what the cops knew, that there was a risk of sudden death in that exact situation?
The cops said it out loud.
There was a risk of sudden death.
I mean, they use the technical word, but that's what it is.
Somebody says they should have called for paramedics.
I think there's plenty...
Let me be as clear as I can.
I would be amazed if the guy with his neck, with his knee on the neck, doesn't get charged with something that sticks.
It just feels like there's got to be something in the way he did his job that was criminal, because it looked like it.
So I'm not trying to excuse him.
I'm predicting. And I'm predicting that the three cops who were not charged, even when Ellison looked at it...
Now, Ellison, of course, is the leftiest left.
You know, he's literally Antifa-friendly.
So Ellison is the Attorney General, and apparently he even said, even Ellison said, the other three cops, it's going to be a problem.
Because he's seen the evidence, and I think he knows that they're not going to get convicted, the other three.
The one? Probably.
So, like coronavirus, the odds of this being a two-wave problem with a second wave of rioting and looting is really high, probably in the 90% range, because the other three cops have almost no chance of being convicted, in my opinion.
Or if they get convicted, it'll be some minor thing.
I don't think that that will satisfy the bloodlust.
Because there is a bloodlust here, right?
People want revenge.
They just want revenge.
Now, why is it that the black community wants revenge?
Well, obviously it's because their lived experience, backed up by lots of news reporting, is that they're targeted by the police.
Now, the statistics, as I understand them, Do not back that up.
Do the news networks report that it's simply not true that black people are killed at a higher rate than white people during stops where, let's say, you both have weapons or you don't have weapons, but, you know, apples to apples.
Is CNN reporting that there actually is not a real problem that the riots are rioting over?
In other words, it's an imaginary problem In the sense that if you looked at the statistics, it would disappear.
Now because we have the video, that part's not imaginary.
That's the actual crime, it looks like.
So you have to treat that one as a specific case.
But how is CNN handling this?
What are they doing to lower the temperature?
Well, here's a sentence off of CNN's website.
Now remember, this is CNN trying to lower the temperature, make sure that the violence stays low, and here's what they say.
Police officers are rarely charged with crimes for violence against black men.
And even in those rare cases, juries have repeatedly shown an unwillingness to convict.
Now, is that a true statement?
I'm sure it is.
Wouldn't you say this is a true statement?
I mean, I haven't seen the statistics, but I'm guessing it's true.
Sounds true. So let me read again.
From CNN, police officers are rarely charged with crimes for violence against black men.
I'll bet that's true.
Right? What did they leave out?
Here's what I think they left out.
And they could have at least mentioned it if they wanted to give us good context.
How often are the police successfully charged for violence against anyone?
Anyone? Is it true that when police are charged with violence against black Americans that the police are not charged, or they're not charged for that, but they are charged when they have violence against white Americans if the situations are similar?
Is that what CNN is telling us?
Because by leaving out, it seems to me that they should have said, just to complete the thought, if they believed it was true, they would have completed the thought and say, police are rarely charged for hurting black citizens, but they're often charged for hurting other citizens.
The reason they don't do the second part is because I don't think it's true.
I think just police generally don't get charged with hurting people, and I'm not even sure that's a big problem because the opposite would be even worse.
If police could not do their job because they were too worried about being charged with hurting people, I don't know if you'd have an effective police force.
You'd probably get riots like you have today.
Here's what the police chief, Aaron Dondo, I think it's the police chief who is responsible for the police officers who were charged.
And he told CNN that the silence of the four officers involved in Floyd's death and their inaction made them, quote, complicit.
So complicit, you know, in quotes.
What does it mean to be complicit?
And is that a crime?
Exactly. And if the crime is silence and inaction...
How do you square silence and inaction with the fact that it's reported that they were doing the opposite?
They were actively saying, should we turn him on his side?
Should we treat it differently?
How could we keep him alive?
That's the opposite of inaction.
That's actually action in which they discussed the best option, and in the end, they did not find an option that worked.
Now, let me complete a thought I realized I didn't complete earlier.
Fentanyl in the system creates the possibility that the fentanyl killed him just by itself.
There is a non-zero chance that if he had any drugs left over that he didn't want to be busted for, he may have put them in his mouth.
If he took the drugs he had with him so that he wouldn't be busted, it would be a high likelihood, if any of that was fentanyl, it would be a high likelihood that he would have an overdose at exactly that time.
In other words, while in custody, which didn't have to happen at that very moment, but the odds of him dying while in custody were very high if, and this is just speculation, he took any drugs to avoid being caught with drugs.
Now, we don't know that that happened, but because there was fentanyl in him, that becomes a contributing factor.
So if you were the cop with the knee and you were his attorney, how would you argue the case?
Here's how I would argue it.
I would say, I knew that I was only putting enough pressure on him that it wouldn't kill him, but I didn't know that under these special circumstances that he had these drugs in him.
I didn't know that was an extra dangerous situation, so it was an accident.
I think that's what he'll argue, but I think he'll probably lose and it'll be manslaughter anyway.
So we got that going on.
Oh, it's called excited delirium, is what one of the police called it.
He was worried, also known as agitated delirium.
Now the delirium part is related to being on drugs, and it means that you become suddenly violent or could.
So we now have an evidence that the police were sort of doing a field diagnosis.
You know, they're not medically trained.
But they are trained to recognize situations so that they can do risk management.
And one of the police officers was calling it out as maybe this excited delirium or agitated delirium, which means that they were recognizing that although the guy seemed nominally not dangerous, that it was the nature of his condition that could cause him to flip to dangerous very quickly.
So that was actually discussed and now you understand why three of them were holding him down because they suspected there was a high likelihood that he could turn from friendly to dangerous at a snap because of the condition they were observing.
Not because of him or not because he was black but because of the medical condition they observed.
Their case is going to be a lot stronger than you want it to be, I'll tell you.
But Yeah.
Alright, so we have two battling autopsies, which of course the fake news is reporting incorrectly.
So the fake news is reporting that the family's autopsy, the one they paid to have done, shows that the cause of death is homicide.
Whereas the other experts are...
Yeah, I think in both cases it's homicide.
Yeah, I think in both cases it's homicide.
But if you look at the autopsy report, the official one, it says cause of death, homicide, and then at the bottom it has a footnote that nobody's going to report.
You know what the footnote says?
The footnote says you should ignore that word homicide.
That's what the footnote says.
I'm paraphrasing, but that's what it says.
It says don't take homicide as homicide.
It says that right on the same page.
It says cause of death, homicide.
And then just right down the page, it says, just to be clear, homicide doesn't mean legally homicide.
It just means there was a person involved and the guy died, basically.
There was another person involved.
The actions of the other person were somehow implicated in the death.
So in other words, the coroner report does not say a crime happened.
And they're clear about that.
They say it in direct language.
This report does not determine that a crime occurred.
It's very important.
I'll be amazed if CNN ever reports correctly.
Sorry, I got a security alert while I was on live stream here.
But it was just a bird walking across my security camera.
We live in a kind of time where I don't want to tell you that I'm afraid for my own life, because my risk is actually pretty low.
But if I talk about things in public, one worries that crazy people can find you or whatever.
But of course, people like me are taking extra security precautions.
So I have this thought in my mind, How that would go down, and it doesn't go down well for other people.
Let's just put it that way. All right.
So we've got the battling autopsies.
We've got CNN, who will probably never mention fentanyl or its role in this whole thing, which is pretty big in all likelihood.
We don't know. Nothing is known about this.
That's one thing. All right.
Let me ask you this.
I predict, not I predict, I estimate.
So on back of the envelope and estimate, I would say that Antifa has killed more black Americans or will kill more black Americans in the coming decade than all of the police action put together.
So that's my prediction.
So my prediction is that Antifa, given their contribution to the riots, and the economic devastation which they're causing right now.
My estimate is that Antifa, if you were to do the math, would be directly responsible for maybe tens of thousands of black American deaths through the mechanism of extra poverty.
Imagine trying to be a young black man in an urban place and asking for a job at any future retail organization.
Good luck. Good luck.
Because if the goal of the riots was to decrease racism, of course the opposite happened.
Of course. Because, tragically, The protesters are going to get very much of the opposite of what they were protesting for.
So in the making it worse category, this is sort of the world-class, most making it worse thing you could ever do.
Now I think a lot of the protesters are well-intentioned, even most.
Maybe most of the protesters are well-intentioned.
Certainly not the looters.
Certainly not Antifa.
But a lot of people are well-intentioned.
Still, I think you could do a calculation to figure out how many black Americans Antifa will kill over the next ten years compared to the police, and I don't think it'll be even close.
I think the numbers would be, you know, in rough numbers.
It's going to be something like tens of thousands of black Americans will be killed by Antifa through poverty.
And maybe, I don't know, a few hundred over ten years would be killed by the police.
So I think it's sort of a few hundred that the police are killing to maybe tens of thousands of black Americans that Antifa were killing.
And that's not counting.
That's not counting the fact that good luck getting a job.
Because, you know, Even if the economy came back.
Let me ask you this.
I put this poll up just before I went live so I can check the results.
And I'll ask you this.
If you were an employer, and somebody came in for a job in the future, and you saw in their social media history that they had participated in the protests in any fashion.
In any fashion.
It doesn't matter if they were peaceful.
It doesn't matter if you know they weren't.
Just in any fashion.
Would you hire them?
Would you hire somebody who participated in the protests knowing that their participation was the shield for the looters and Antifa?
Knowing that that was certainly going to do that.
How many of you would hire somebody who had taken part in that?
Because I would go on record as saying I would not.
And I think that's important.
I would never hire anybody who had participated in any fashion in the protests.
Now, I might make an exception if it was the first night.
If somebody came in for a job and said, blah, blah, blah, and I said, well, I've looked at your social media, you were at those protests.
If they were to argue to me, whoa, no, no, I went the first night.
The first night.
It was really just a protest.
It just devolved.
I would take that into consideration.
And I would say, oh, okay.
So really, if you saw how bad it was after the first night and you adjusted by not going the second night, I can live with that.
Because maybe that's a good person, good cause, saw that it didn't work out, adjusted.
Totally. I can live with that.
But if they went more than one night after we knew that the rioting was happening, All right, so here's the poll I did online.
So, of course, this is not a scientific poll.
I said, would you hire someone whose social media history showed they were part of this week's riot-looting protests?
The people who said, of course, they're good people?
3%. 3% of the people who answered this.
Now, of course, these are mostly conservatives who answered, I think.
79% said, no, why risk it?
And 18% said, just show me the votes.
So really, if you get rid of the 18% who just wanted to see the results, it was 79 to 3 in favor of they would not hire somebody whose social media history showed that they had been, even an attendee, even just an attendee at the protests.
So why is the news not reporting that?
Why do you have to hear that from me?
The news is no longer the news.
The news is now some kind of social programming.
The news is programming you.
It's not just giving you news.
So, that's a pretty big story.
Now, what does it mean to declare Antifa domestic terrorists?
Well, the funny part about it is that the Democrats have been suckered into supporting a terrorist organization publicly.
So Kamala Harris is one of the people raising money for a group that has just been declared domestic terrorists.
Now, of course, if you ask Kamala, she'd say, no, I'm raising money for honest protesters who have a real cause.
But unfortunately, she can't distinguish between who's getting bailed out, who's Antifa, and who was a good person who was in the wrong place.
So, in a very real sense, not even in a political sense, but in a real, direct, accurate, factual sense, Kamala Harris is supporting domestic terrorists.
Now, Trump has managed to be in a position where his opponents are supporting terrorists who are destroying the country.
Do you think he can lose election at this point?
If things go the way they're going, and Trump becomes the name that is associated with the coming crackdown, because there has to be a crackdown eventually.
He almost certainly will be elected in the biggest landslide in American history.
Because how many Democrats are watching the carnage and watching their own lives being destroyed by their team?
A lot of Democrats just watch their entire lives be destroyed by their own side.
And they also watched that none of the Republican cities seem to be even affected.
It's hard to not notice.
And it's hard to not notice that one team is supporting literally terrorists.
Now, what do you do with this?
I heard Andrew McCarthy say that there are enough laws on the books already that you don't need to define anybody as a domestic terrorist.
It doesn't have any meaning. But what meaning could it have?
We could give it meaning.
Congress can make new laws.
We know how to make laws.
So let's say we gave it some meaning.
What kind of meaning, what kind of powers would you want to attribute to the domestic terrorist designation?
Now, of course, the big risk Is that once it's even allowed that you can call domestic people terrorists?
The moment you allow that, you're open to abuse.
Because then there might be some future group that's not so bad that gets declared terrorist organization because it's politically expedient.
So you can see it would be opening Pandora's box.
But we also might not have any choice.
In other words, the risk-reward here might be that, well, you just have to do it anyway.
So what could it mean...
I'll give you some suggestions.
One thing is it could change the sentencing.
So I would argue that if somebody is responsible for the deaths of 10,000 black Americans, you should be considering the death penalty.
Or at the very least, life in prison.
So I would think that for Antifa, given that they're destroying the lives of tens of thousands of people, and that they're literally an anti-America treasonous group, that something like the death sentence or life in prison would be appropriate.
Now I don't think any of these things are going to happen.
This is just brainstorming.
What about banning phones at protests?
Now you can't really ban a phone, but you could turn them off.
You could track them.
What about tracking them?
Let me ask you this. I would say that I have a security interest, as an American, I have a security interest in knowing who the Antifa people were, or indeed knowing who was at the protests in general, because I would like to keep them away from me because they would be dangerous to me.
I think it's a fair statement to say that anybody who attended the protests, not anybody, that's too much, but that the average person who attended the protest would be physically dangerous to me.
Because they might perceive me to be part of the problem.
So don't I have an interest in knowing where they are and who they are the same as I have an interest in knowing where a pedophile lives?
If you can publish the address and name of a pedophile because there's something special about that crime, that means that if there's something special about some other crime, the door is open.
So we have a precedent That in unusual circumstances, the public has such an interest to know that you can violate the privacy of especially bad people such as pedophiles, because the public health interest is just that great.
Now, since I'm literally at risk, and so are many of you, from even being in the same room as somebody from Antifa, it's sort of risky at this point, don't I have a citizen's right to know who they are and where they are?
And to avoid hiring them.
Imagine if you accidentally hired somebody from Antifa and you didn't know it.
Well, that's not good for your business, is it?
It might not even be good for your health.
So I would say that, given that we know the government is tracking all of our phones all the time, shouldn't I have a right, again, I'm just brainstorming here, every idea I toss out, I'm well aware that the unintended consequences might be larger than the problem.
So you don't need to tell me these are good ideas or bad ideas.
We're just brainstorming. So just brainstorming some more.
Suppose we just made a list of everybody whose phone was at the protests, which would be pretty much everybody, because I don't think too many people were there without phones.
So, shouldn't I always be able to look at the list?
Let's say I'm going to hire somebody.
Shouldn't I be able to check them against the list of people who attended?
Now, I could ask questions and say, why did you attend?
They might say, I was shocked by the murder of a black man.
I just wanted to show my participation.
And you might say, good enough.
I agree with that.
You're on board.
Maybe. I mean, it'd be up to you.
But I do think that the employer is owed that information for health and safety reasons.
Because I think you could identify somebody who's actually Antifa if you're talking to them.
It probably isn't that hard to identify Antifa if you're looking for it, you know, if you know what to look for.
So I would just put that out there.
The phones of all the people at the protests, we could easily identify where they were and when.
Now you could also do it a clever way, which is you could say there's a public health need because of coronavirus.
Would you not like to know if you're coming in physical contact with anybody who came in physical contact with thousands of protesters?
Yeah. I think you have a legitimate right to know if somebody intentionally put themselves in a highly infectious situation for your own health.
I think you have a right to know that.
Is it likely that any of these things will happen?
I'd say no. Not likely at all.
What if domestic terrorists lose their right to privacy just the way foreign terrorists do?
Foreign terrorists don't have any American privacy rights.
But suppose the domestic terrorists, just for a mental experiment, suppose they lost their rights of privacy as well.
Their phones were tracked, their social media was tracked, etc.
Would that happen?
I don't know. Just brainstorming.
Suppose we did to domestic terrorists the same thing we do to foreign terrorists, which is disrupt their economic network.
There are literally GoFundMe accounts for terrorists.
What? That's right.
There are public GoFundMe accounts for Antifa who are domestic terrorists.
Why do we allow that? So certainly there's something we can do with the finances, something with the penalties, something with privacy and identification.
I don't think any of them who will be identified, if you could identify them, certainly employers know not to hire them, so that's pretty bad.
Now I would say that the news business is I think violating a public trust, and this is both the left and the right, I think both the left and the right are violating a public trust by not reporting the true statistics of crime so that they sort of let it stay out there that black people are killed at a higher rate by cops.
Allowing that to be believed by the public Is such an abrogation of responsibility that I would think the FTC could pull their licenses, or the FCC or whatever.
Whoever. There must be somebody who could pull some kind of a license for that kind of bad behavior.
Because the public is required to know that these protesters are dangerous, both in terms of virus and in terms of just being around them.
They're terrorists. And the people who march with them, of course, are supportive of terrorists.
By definition, they don't have to mean they're supportive.
It doesn't mean their intention is to be supportive, but they are.
And they made that choice.
So where, and I said it before, where are my data projections?
We've got a million estimates for what's going to happen with global warming.
We saw all these estimates of who's going to die from the coronavirus.
We have estimates and data and graphs For every freaking thing under the sun.
The only one that matters today, the only one that matters, is this graph of how many black people Antifa are killing.
Because if the news were reporting that fact, or even just talking about the question, imagine that CNN had a panel discussion, and let's say it got picked up by the other news, and the discussion went like this.
Well, we've run the numbers, and there's some There's some dispute about the estimates, because there always are.
But in general terms, it looks like Antifa will kill tens of thousands of black Americans through their destruction of economic resources and, of course, make racism much, much worse.
I mean, you can measure that with polls, so where's that?
And then, of course, these people will never get jobs once they're identified, and eventually we'll be able to identify them all one way or the other.
Where's the news reporting those basic facts?
Because those are the basic facts that would reduce the temperature and help things.
Because it would discourage people from continuing to do these things.
But the news is kind of actively encouraging it, I would say.
Larry Elder has been probably one of the only honest voices in this whole situation.
Because he's a black man and he's a conservative, so he's capable.
He's got this sort of a safe position where he can say things that are true.
I think we've come to the point that the only people who can tell the truth in public are black conservatives.
Think about that. That'll blow your mind when you think about it a little longer.
The only people who are allowed, even allowed, to tell the truth in public...
Are black conservatives. Because they can say things white conservatives can't say.
And the other side is just lying.
So, how about that?
Alright. Let me just check my notes and see if I missed anything exciting.
And we've got police shootings in Las Vegas.
DJ Dr. Funk Juice reminds me.
He's a Vegas resident, that police were actually targeted last night.
Police were targeted and shot last night.
Now, how much longer are we willing to go?
Oh yeah, Jesse Lee Peterson is another truth teller.
Very interesting man.
Very interesting man.
Jesse Lee Peterson is one of the most interesting people.
I spent a little time with him.
He did an interview when I was on a book tour.
And there is something about that guy that is really...
I don't know.
He's got that X factor.
He's just got something going on.
I love that guy. Yeah, Candace Owens can tell the truth, although she gets a lot of social blowback from him.
All right. Somebody says...
Good to know because I'm a black conservative and you can tell the truth.
Clinton is in court today.
For what? Scott, can you find the laws on shooting terrorists?
Well, I don't think we're going to see any laws that would allow domestic terrorists to be shot.
I think you can rule that out.
Estimate is that 8 to 10 innocent people are dead from the riots.
That's the small number.
I think that's worth reporting.
But the big number is what the economic devastation will do.
So I'm going to be advocating that we see those numbers just in the interest of knowing the whole story.
We want to know the whole story.
We want to know how many black people Antifa has killed.
Now, I was thinking that maybe the only...
If you try to game this out...
And think, how do you get past this?
My best guess is like the coronavirus, there are some things where the energy itself just dissipates after a time.
So it could be that after a certain amount of destruction, the energy just dissipates.
That would be cool. But there are certainly smart people such as Rudy Giuliani and people who understand crime and criminal minds and that sort of thing, who say that as long as the criminals keep getting away with it, the looting in particular, especially the gang looting, which is what makes it safe, they loot in such large numbers that the police wisely just step back because there's nothing you can do.
They're so outnumbered. And you don't want people to get hurt over merchandise.
So the looters have come up with a business model that we don't have any response to.
Because if you don't actually kill them, why would they stop?
Because you can't arrest them.
And even if you arrested a few, so many would not be arrested.
It would still be a good risk-reward.
So right now the business model of the looters is the superior business model.
They just come in large numbers.
They use social media.
They get some stuff.
They go home. There's no real risk.
To them, except, of course, the total destruction of the economy, which will catch up to them eventually.
But the police don't have a response to that.
So if you're trying to say, all right, so where does this go?
One way is that police get better tools.
And maybe they prevent things early, and they just figure out how to be more clever and more effective.
Certainly some of that will happen.
Meaning that there's no doubt that the police will become more effective and will bring in new tools.
We don't know what they are yet. But we don't know if they'll be effective.
Suppose that doesn't work.
Suppose the business model of the looters just is so good that it goes from store to store to store and it's just every night and once they've robbed your town they just pick a new town until all the towns are robbed to nothing.
What would stop them?
Because it's working, as long as it works, why would you stop doing it?
People do things that work.
The only thing I can think of, and now imagine if they started shooting people or getting tough on protesters, eventually a black person would be killed by a policeman.
What happens if one black person, no matter what they were doing, no matter the situation, if one black person gets killed by one police officer, even justified, What's going to happen?
The whole cities will just go up in flames.
Now, you could argue that it shouldn't and blah blah blah, but it would.
You know it would. So, I got a feeling that the only way this ends is by taking out Antifa, in whatever way that can happen.
So, Antifa is the weak link.
Meaning that the black people are not going to support Antifa.
Why would they? Because Antifa is literally killing them by tens of thousands right now.
It'll take a while for the deaths, but what they're doing guarantees the deaths of tens of thousands of African Americans.
So I would think the black community would be perfectly happy if the government just went tough on Antifa, because that would take enough of the energy and of the situation to Then maybe that makes your other tools more effective.
But you gotta remove energy from the situation, and that's the weakest link.
So I would say Antifa is the weak link.
You gotta go after that hard, and then see if you have enough tools to deal with whatever's left.
Let's see. Legally, can the FBI treat the Antifa like the Unabomber, McVeigh, or serial killers?
I would think so. I would think so.
Yeah. Difference being the immediacy of the actual crime.
Why are there George Floyd-inspired protests in Europe?
I'm a bit baffled, somebody says.
Well, let me explain that to you.
It's not about George Floyd.
It's really not.
And the European protests prove that.
Now, which is not to say That there aren't lots of protesters who are there for that explicit reason.
George Floyd, there are plenty of them.
But that's not what's causing the problem.
It's not the genuine good-intentioned people who want to protest against discrimination and racism.
They're not the problem.
We could have them marching all day long.
I'll march with them. It's the looters and the Antifa, of course.
So Europe has plenty of potential looters, plenty of potential Antifa.
They had their own lockdown. They've got lots of young people.
If you've got lots of young people with too much energy, especially males, they need to go break stuff.
Unfortunately, if we could be sexist for a moment, young males, every type, nothing racist here, but young males of every type everywhere in the world, if they don't have anything productive to do, like go to work or go to war, they're going to break stuff.
It's built into the model.
There's just too much energy there, and it's not always productive energy.
Somebody says restitution.
I don't know what that means.
But I can tell you that reparations is over as a topic.
I had been supportive of reparations as at least a conversation.
My idea of it was not to give cash payments in any way, but maybe target improving education in some way as the form of reparations.
In other words, giving African Americans some kind of advantage for funding some kind of college experience As sort of a reparations.
Now, I'm not saying that was a good idea.
I was just sort of trying to brainstorm to find if there was anything, any weird combination of ideas that would get something like reparations, but would not be odious to the political right.
I never came up with one.
Certainly I never got close, but I was willing to embarrass myself by that conversation.
Here again, lack of ego is useful.
Because it's a conversation that you get in a lot of trouble.
You get in a lot of trouble telling conservatives they should at least engage in the conversation of reparations.
That's not a comfortable place to be, but of course, I don't care.
However, as I promised you yesterday, if there was another night of looting because the protesters are so uncaring, The protesters are so uncaring that they would create a situation that guarantees this death and looting.
I said that I would abandon the African-American community in terms of helping.
So today that goes into effect.
So I would say that the first thing is reparations are off the table.
These are the reparations.
Let me say that again. This is the reparations.
The cost, the economic cost of this will be far greater than whatever checks I mean, I would look to an economist to actually do me the math, but I think we just had the reparations.
These are the reparations.
Because it's so expensive to build back these businesses and recover that I would imagine We're talking something in the trillion dollar range, just from these riots.
Probably a trillion. And I can't imagine that reparations would have ever reached a trillion dollars.
So, somebody said, that Latimer can help with that.
There's nothing to help with. Reparations are done.
Reparations are an historical fact.
There's nothing you have to talk about in the future.
That conversation is completely gone.
And likewise, I just can't have any empathy.
I would say that while it is true, it's always good to start with this.
No, actually, I'm going to go...
I was trying to control my temper this morning because I just don't think it's good to have too much temper.
So I'm going to bring my temperature down and then I'm going to make a criticism of Black Lives Matter.
Compare the slogan Black Lives Matter...
I have a dream.
I have a dream is just perfect persuasion in every way.
Everybody likes it, there's nothing to dislike, doesn't cause a fight, nothing like that.
When I hear Black Lives Matter, does that feel like I have a dream?
Does Black Lives Matter feel like the same message as Martin Luther King, that everybody should be equal, we're heading in that direction, nobody disagrees, Let's get there together.
Versus Black Lives Matter.
Because what do you hear when you hear Black Lives Matter?
I'll tell you what I hear.
I hear that white lives don't matter.
Now, is that what they're saying?
No! No, they're not saying that.
They're not saying that at all.
But it's what I hear.
When you hear I have a dream, does that sound anything like this negative...
No. It's explicitly positive for everyone.
And indeed, Martin Luther King included everyone when he talked about it.
Everybody, white and black, you know, you can rise to whatever level.
He explicitly included everybody as being valuable.
That is why Martin Luther King has a holiday and Black Lives Matter doesn't even have a leader.
That's the difference. Black Lives Matter, the phrase, Black Lives Matter, is destructive.
It's destructive to civilization.
I had a dream is productive.
And here I'm only talking about persuasion.
So if you're new to these periscopes, on a persuasion level, the phrase Black Lives Matter makes things worse.
Because what do white people say when they hear it?
All lives matter. What do black people say when they hear all lives matter?
You're not taking us seriously.
I hate you now.
No, I hate you for bringing up a problem that wasn't a problem.
No, I hate you. Black Lives Matter is a divisive identity.
It's divisive. Now, I don't know that it was meant to be.
I don't think that anybody thought down and said, let me come up with a good divisive slogan.
But they came up with one.
In fact, it might be possibly the worst slogan of all time, maybe, because of the destruction it's going to cause.
So I think Black Lives Matter, as a slogan, probably will kill lots of black people.
I think it will be anti-productive because it creates division, which creates more racism, which creates everything bad.
If Black Lives Matter simply rebranded as All Lives Matter...
There wouldn't be any riots.
It would sort of be over.
If Black Lives Matter rebranded themselves as All Lives Matter I'd be marching.
I'd be marching.
But if you want to make it about yourself, I think you have every right to do that, because every group gets to take care of its community.
Every right to do that.
Don't have a complaint with that at all.
I'm just giving you some persuasion advice.
I'm not giving you life advice.
I'm not telling you what you think.
I'm not telling you what you should think.
Nothing like that.
Everybody gets to make their own decisions in this world.
I'm only telling you that if you wanted to be effective, you need to be effective with white people, because otherwise you're just talking to yourself.
And Black Lives Matter is a message from black people to black people.
When white people hear it, it's divisive.
If you want to be divisive, just start some protests that you know are going to bring Antifa and looters, and let us film all that so that we can make racism much, much worse, because that's what happened.
So I would say that Black Lives Matter is a failed, destructive organization with good intentions.
Good intentions.
For the vast majority of people who are associated, all good intentions.
But execution?
Solid failure.
All right. That's for today.
Let's see how this plays out.
I told you that I wasn't going to do evening periscopes anymore because the coronavirus shutdown was winding down.
But then I got a curfew last night.
Even where I live.
I live in the safest place in the whole world.
Even I had a curfew. Freaking curfew.
I broke the curfew, of course.
I'm not going to pay attention to a curfew in my town.
But it's not like there's any risk around here.
But the fact that there was a curfew makes me think maybe I should do some evening periscopes, but I haven't decided on that yet.
Alright, people get very angry when you say all lives matter.
