All Episodes
June 4, 2020 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:12:16
Episode 1017 Scott Adams: I Teach You How to Break Others Free From Their delusions. We Might Need That.

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: News reporting frames topics, and it's intentionally DIVISIVE The frame of racism keeps the elites in power Why is CNN downplaying Antifa and their antics? Whiteboard1: Priming Whiteboard2: Popping the Delusion Keith Ellison's riot seeding, upgraded legal charges ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody, come on in.
It's time for coffee with Scott Adams.
It's one of the best times of the day.
No. Correction.
Correction. It's the best time of the day.
That's how it is.
And all you need To enjoy the best time of the day is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Hey, Bill. Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better, including the pandemic, including the protests, including police brutality, wherever it occurs.
Join me now. Go.
Yep. Yep. Temperature's going down.
Golden Age is here.
So, in case you missed it, the Golden Age started yesterday.
What do I mean, the Golden Age started yesterday?
The economy is in the toilet and the protesters are protesting record numbers against the injustices of the police.
Well, here's how I see it.
The economy is on the way up.
It is. The economy is going to be turning around, no doubt about it.
We don't know how fast, etc., but it's definitely going to go up from this point on.
It probably will go to new highs, and we probably uncovered a whole bunch of problems with civilization that now can be fixed, because they had to get broken And we had to see all their flaws under stress, which we did, and now we can go fix them.
Everything from the police to how we handle pandemics, our medical system, our education system, commuting, you name it.
If we had not taken the box of civilization and shaken it so hard, there would not be as many economic opportunities as there will be.
Because we just made everything in play.
Suddenly, we went from, well, there were a lot of industries that were sort of sleepy and not doing much, but now everything's in play.
You could be an entrepreneur in pretty much any realm, and you saw the problems, you saw the flaws, you know exactly what to work on.
That needs to get fixed.
So the economy is not just going to improve.
It's going to improve and be a whole new machine.
It's a brand new car.
It's not fixing the spark plugs on your old car.
That's where we've been for, I don't know, 20 years.
For 20 years, I would say we've done nothing but change the oil and rotate the tires.
We're going to have a brand new car.
And so the economy, I'd completely buy into the president's framing of this.
That what's happening is something amazing.
We're at the cusp of economic growth, the likes of which we've never seen.
I think that's true. So that's good.
The protests, I believe, have now almost completely changed from unruly and full of crime and anarchist to something last night, assuming the coverage is giving me the real story, and that's a big F. But it looks like the protests have turned into a love fest.
A love fest in the sense that nobody disagrees.
Nobody disagrees that that George Floyd situation looked bad, bad, bad.
Nobody disagrees.
Nobody disagrees that some change would be good.
Nobody disagrees.
It looks like the protesters and the police We're completely on the same side on the question of, do you want looters and anarchists ruining your message?
Nope. Don't want any anarchists and looters ruining the message.
Same page. So weirdly, literally everyone except a tiny, tiny number of looters, I suppose, and anarchists, were on the same side last night.
Did you see anybody report that the whole country came together last night?
Nope. Nope.
That's what happened last night.
Last night, everybody in the country agreed.
It's the biggest story in the world.
It's never happened before.
Last night, everybody in the country agreed.
Let's do something about police procedures.
Let's make something better.
We're all agreeing.
Now, some of the details, right?
Disagree in the details, but I don't know.
If that's not the golden age, what is?
If the only people who disagree with you are looters because they want extra footwear, you're in a pretty good place.
Pretty good place.
You saw the military agree with the protesters.
You saw the police agree with the protesters and march with them.
You saw protesters helping the police take the the brick throwers out of the game.
You saw the entire country come together and it was reported as the opposite.
What is the big problem in the world?
It's the news. It is.
It's the news. I was going to do a whiteboard presentation on that, but I'm going to give it to you without the whiteboard.
And it goes like this.
Here's the system you live in.
Your news organizations present a frame of how to see things.
When the frame is presented, people just inhabit the frame as if that's the way to look at it.
The frame that the news has put on things is that it's a race problem.
Once you have that frame, people just inhabit it.
Some say, no, it's not.
Some say, yes, it is.
No, it's not. You did things.
No, I didn't. You did things.
No, I didn't. So the frame that's given to you by the news Is meant to be divisive.
If it's not divisive, it doesn't generate more news.
So the news business has learned that framing things divisively generates more division, which generates more news, which generates more profits.
Now here's that part.
You knew all that part.
Here's the part I'm going to add that you probably did not know.
And it's going to blow your frickin' head right off.
Are you ready? This one you're going to be thinking about probably for weeks, and it goes like this.
If I can frame something first, and you accept the framing, remember the framing is not your opinion.
The framing is simply how you enter the conversation, like who's on what side.
Your opinion is separate from that, but it's an overlay of the frame that somebody's given you.
If somebody frames it first, you will think your opinion is real.
Did you get that?
If somebody else frames the topic, you will form an opinion, and you will think that you came up with the opinion.
And he didn't.
That's the big illusion of life.
The way the news industry hypnotizes, brainwashes, manipulates, whatever word you want to put on it, the masses, is by the framing.
So by framing this issue as a race issue, it guarantees division.
Division guarantees more news.
More news guarantees more clicks, more profits.
So they've suckered you into a frame that makes you think you have an opinion But you didn't.
It's actually an illusion of an opinion.
Because your opinion just went to whichever part of the frame you thought you fit the best.
They made your opinion for you and gave you the impression you made it yourself.
Now, that fact is very difficult to To accept as your worldview.
But you will.
Because it's also so sticky that once you hear it, you just have to hear it the first time.
That the frame gives you the illusion of forming an opinion, but that didn't happen.
It didn't happen. All you did is pick the part of the frame you were closest to.
If somebody had picked a different frame, the thing you thought your opinion would look different.
Once you realize that, you realize what the game is.
And you can see behind the curtain.
You want to get red-pilled a little bit harder?
Here it comes. Let that last one settle in a little bit, because this next one's going to just knock you off your chair.
The only way that the elites can stay in power is by making you think we're racially and gender-divided.
Mostly racially.
The only way the elites can stay in power is making you think we're racially divided.
Do you know why? Because if people realized that poor people, let's just say low-income people, so there's more of them in the group, so low-income people, if low-income people realized that they had more in common with each other, regardless of anything else, Regardless of religion, regardless of ethnicity, regardless of gender.
Gender is sort of special, so let's leave that out at the moment.
So let's just say, regardless of ethnicity, all people with low income have a lot in common in terms of their situation.
Now, one of the things that black people don't know, because they've been poorly informed by white people, is that being a poor white person is a really shitty deal.
If you don't believe me, ask any poor white person how it's going.
It's a really shitty deal.
It's a really shitty deal.
And if the people who have really shitty deals could simply understand they're on the same team, they would have all the power in this country.
Because there are a lot of them.
And we have a system that allows the majority to rule if they're smart enough to know they're on the same team.
But they're not.
And I shouldn't say smart enough, because that's the wrong word.
They are smart enough, but they've bought into a frame.
The frame of racism forces you to, it's a hip, let's say it's a magician's trick.
It's misdirection.
As long as you're looking over here, oh, racial, race, race, race.
It's a race thing.
Race is holding us down.
It's prejudice. It's racism.
As long as you're looking over there, you can't see the obvious, which is the rich people can only stay in power.
They can only keep their money if you're fighting about race.
Because otherwise you would get together and there's too many of you.
Roll that around in your head for a little while.
So, if that doesn't wake you up, I don't know what will.
You want more? Oh, I think you can handle it.
You can handle it.
Here's some more. We're going deep today.
I'm going to show you one of the ways in which you have been, let's say, fooled.
It goes like this.
People get primed By patterns that they see.
And if they see a pattern often enough, they assume that the next thing they see is likely that same thing, even if it's not.
So patterns are a necessary part of your brain.
In fact, I say it's the primary part of your brain.
We're mostly pattern recognition machines, but we're not very good at it.
We're bad at pattern recognition, but it's also the only way we think.
We say, well, it looked like this before.
I don't see reasons. I don't see any logic for it.
But this always happens when this always happens.
So I'll just say that they usually come together.
So that's how fuzzy and irrational our thinking is for most things.
Most of the time, most things, we have this fuzzy pattern recognition thing going on.
But it's a trap.
Because while you have to use pattern recognition to get through life, it can fool you into thinking the wrong things.
Here's an example. You are primed by movies.
One of our most powerful cultural elements, I guess, is watching TV and movies, etc.
So you're used to watching a screen in which a story is presented.
And in the story that's presented in the fictional movie TV world, everything you see on the screen is important.
And nothing that you don't see is important.
Meaning that the director and the writer have guaranteed that what you're looking at is complete.
So you spend your whole life looking at movies and TV shows in which, in every case, the pattern is this.
The stuff you see on the screen It's all that you need to know.
There's nothing else. If there was anything else you needed to know, the director would have put it there so you'd understand the story.
Real life is completely different.
In real life, there may be somebody behind the car that is not seen on the video.
In a movie, that would never happen.
No director would put something behind an object so that the people in the audience can't see it.
What would be the point?
There'd be no point of that. So you are primed that what you see on the screen is the whole story.
There's nothing else.
You're looking at it.
And then you're exposed to real life.
Let's say somebody's phone video, and it doesn't need to be about anybody in particular.
You could make it about the recent case about George Floyd, but it's a general statement that a video phone doesn't show you what's behind the car Because you're not a director and a writer, there just might be something behind the car.
In the case when you saw the first video of George Floyd, you couldn't tell that behind the car were the two other officers who were also involved holding down the suspect.
Now that changed your story a little bit when you learned that.
It's like, oh, okay, well that adds a question.
Because it looked like the one officer, when you only saw one, it was obvious he was killing him.
Kind of obvious. It looked like murder to you.
But then you learn there were two other policemen on the other part of George Floyd's body, but that's not on the video, at least the first video.
We saw it later.
And then you say, okay, I've got to incorporate this new information.
But once you've already decided, any new information that comes after you've already decided...
It just becomes confirmation bias and you simply interpret it according to your original thought.
So by seeing the original video without any explainers, people solidified an opinion based on almost no information.
And I think that this pattern recognition thing is part of the problem.
It's not the whole problem, right?
It's just part of the problem that's interesting.
That you assume that what you saw is complete enough to have a complete opinion.
And it's not even close.
It's not even in the ballpark of being enough.
It's far closer to being completely misleading than it is to being complete.
And I think that we take this pattern of, well, it must be all there.
I can see it with my own eyes.
I hear it with my own ears.
It's got to be all I know.
So I think that that makes us susceptible to being fooled as well.
So we've got that going on.
All right, I'll talk a little bit more about this, but we've got some other things happening.
I like to call out when the anti-Trump people are doing something that's funny.
Just so I don't always say that the funny thing is on the pro-Trump side, but I have to say that the pro-Trump people do seem funnier.
As a professional humorist, it is my impression that the pro-Trump people just have a better sense of humor about this stuff, but I think that could be biased.
I don't know. I saw some signs that some anti-Trumpers were holding up, I think somewhere near the White House.
And there was two signs that went together.
One said, racist president, go back to your bunker.
Okay, that wasn't the funny part.
And then the big sign was, bunker bitch.
So they're calling the president a bunker bitch.
And then the White House is...
Well, you have to admit that's just funny.
Bunker bitch. It's as funny as basement Biden.
You know, I think that's funny.
If basement Biden is funny, you have to sort of accept that bunker bitch is sort of a funny sign.
But here's the other one.
So the White House is putting up, I guess, an extra or maybe a new security fence around the White House to protect the president.
So what's trending today is, is Mexico paying for the wall around the White House?
Now, you could be pro-Trump, but that's just funny.
That's pretty funny, you have to admit.
Somebody's asking me about Jimmy Dore.
So let me answer that, just since I saw the question.
So Jimmy Dore tweeted some nonsense at me.
I guess he was questioning...
So I had a tweet in which I said that if you're Antifa, you might not want to bring your phone to meetings.
And Jimmy Dore says, oh, you know, he asked me several questions, but the first one of the several was, you know, where are these Antifa meetings?
In other words, he was questioning that Antifa has meetings, rather than, you know, I guess, rather than a dispersed organization.
So the first thing I did was look for his profile and check his biography.
Do you know why?
Because the nature of the question suggested that he had not been exposed to a number of fields and that his talent stack was a little light.
And so I looked at his biography and his talent stack is really light.
It's really light.
In other words, his experience seems to be in the entertainment realm and I didn't see anything else.
In other words, he didn't used to work as an engineer, or he didn't used to work as an economist or something.
So he doesn't have experience in, as far as I can tell from his biography, he doesn't have experience in either technology or system development, economics, engineering, or anything like that.
So, unfortunately, in order to answer his question honestly, well, where are these Antifa meetings?
I had to look at his profile and call it out that I understand why he is confused.
He doesn't have any background in tech development.
Now I have a ton of background in development projects from probably 30 years of experience being directly part of some development team of a website or an app or some technology thing, both in my prior corporate life and in my current life.
And so there are some assumptions I make about what other people know that are sometimes unfair because they don't have the same experience.
So when I talked about meetings in the context of the, let's say, the government tracking your phone, your location, I meant any meeting.
If you walk over to one other person and say, hey Bob, how's Antifa going?
That would be a meeting of two phones.
And the point is, anytime those two phones We're in any kind of a cluster and you knew that at least one person in the cluster was definitely Antifa and he was traveling in another little cluster.
Well, you know, sooner or later you could piece together enough clues that you could definitely tell who Antifa was simply by where phones have been.
So I had to explain that to Jimmy Dore because it's not obvious if you have a very light talent stack, you can't really fill in the rest of the details just with your own experience.
Somebody has to explain it to you.
So I explained it to him that probably all the Antifa have been tagged and tracked by now.
And it probably is a factor in why there were fewer of the bad actors in last night's protests because I think the government is so far up Antifa's ass at this point That anybody who showed up would either have to leave their phone home, and who can do that?
What 20-year-old can leave their phone off or leave it home when they're going to be out all night?
Almost none.
I don't care if you're Antifa or not Antifa.
If you're in your 20s, you just can't really leave your phone home all night or leave it off.
So I don't think it happened much.
And it doesn't, of course, happen.
And then Jack Posamek weighed in with a comment saying that one of the ways that Antifa used to try to fool people who might be tracking their phones is that they would, I think they would, I may have this backwards, but I think they would turn them off As they were traveling to some place and then turn them on or something.
But anyway, there was something about the pattern of when they turned them off and when they turned them back on that also gave them away.
So in other words, their method of hiding turned into a method of identifying them.
So the point is, yes, if the government had the will to do it, we don't know that, we don't know what they choose to do, but they certainly have all the technology that That by now they know every member of Antifa, because between the social media traffic and the location traffic, if you see a bunch of Antifas standing there, and you can check their phone locations, you're going to see like 10 of them together.
You're going to know. All right.
So that's the Jimmy Dore story.
CNN is...
Well, it looks like there's another news blackout on any bad stuff that's happening, or that the protests were mostly peaceful last night.
So it's being reported as mostly peaceful by the mainstream news.
At the same time, the non-mainstream news, let's call them the individuals with phones, are reporting that there were pipe bombs.
Pipe bombs.
I don't know if I've seen that report in the mainstream news, do you?
But I know Jack Posavik mentioned it, and then I think Jack Murphy mentioned he heard explosions, which sounded like they could have been those bombs.
Now think about that reporting, and then compare it to the mainstream news.
The mainstream news is not even talking about the question of whether or not there were pipe bombs or even if there was a rumor that there were that was disproven, not even as a debunked thing.
Oh, somebody says they saw it yesterday.
Did you see it in the mainstream news?
Because I could be under-informed here.
That's entirely possible.
Okay. So I could be wrong about that, but it seems like the mainstream news is not covering...
It seems like they've decided to lower the temperature, which they can, by the way they report it.
So CNN has become an apologist for Antifa to the point of being hilarious.
And yeah, there was an ATM that exploded.
I don't know what kind of bomb that was.
Somebody is reminding me.
So here are some of the things that CNN is saying to excuse Antifa.
And if you look for it, you're going to have a good laugh.
All right? And they say these things with...
These are written things that I read.
But figuratively speaking, they say it with a straight face.
And you read it and you go, this could easily be the onion.
This could so easily be in the onion...
And they wouldn't even have to change anything.
Alright, here it is. First of all, the CNN says Antifa was not any part of organizing anything.
But one wonders, where did all the BRICS come from and how did all those Antifa know to show up at the same place wearing the same outfits?
It's obviously there's some coordination.
I don't know how much coordination...
But it's pretty obvious there's some coordination, at least among the Antifa.
And there's no question they're there.
We see them on the video.
They dress distinctively so you know who they are.
They dress so you know who they are.
And there they are.
Sure enough. And CNN is acting almost like they don't exist.
Not quite.
They're downplaying it. But listen to this next part.
Here's the fun part. So they say that Trump keeps talking about Antifa, but then CNN goes, this is an actual quote, federal law enforcement officials pointed to groups including anarchists, white supremacists, and far-left extremists.
And I'm thinking to myself, what does it mean to point to groups?
They pointed to groups.
Okay. So if federal and law enforcement officials pointed to groups, Does that mean that they've identified that these groups are definitely part of the action?
No, it doesn't mean that.
It means they pointed to them.
Does it mean that it was mostly anarchists, but only a few people in Antifa?
Well, no, it's silent on the numbers.
It's just pointing to them.
Was there maybe three anarchists in the entire operation?
Don't know. But we do know that federal law enforcement officials pointed at them.
So they've all been pointed at.
Notice how ambiguous pointed at is?
Pointed at. Pointed at does mean guessing.
Somebody in the comments is saying pointed at equals guessing.
That's exactly what that was.
They pointed at them.
And when you wanted to see something in the list as white supremacists, so I thought to myself, well, by now they've obviously found a white supremacist.
So I clicked through the article to read about the white supremacist that they've caught red-handed organizing something.
Do you think that there's actually a story about a white supremacist that they caught organizing something?
Nope. No.
No. There's no photograph.
There's no text that somebody sent.
There's no social media call for the white supremacist.
There's nothing. There's nothing there.
The closest they get is the accusation that there are some far-right people involved who also, coincidentally, And unrelated to what these far-right people who have not been identified and have no pictures and have no verifying information, but allegedly exist, were associated with white supremacy.
In other words, not even necessarily white supremacists.
In other words, simply people on the right.
Because do you know who else is associated with white supremacists, according to CNN? You.
You. So most of the people watching this are Trump supporters, just historically speaking, probably 90%, are Trump supporters.
Would it not be an accurate statement, by CNN standards, by CNN standards, would it not be accurate to say that every one of you is, quote, associated with white supremacy?
Yeah. Yeah, me too.
Associated with...
Meaning that I've said good things about the President of the United States.
The President of the United States, they say, praises white supremacists.
So would that make me, by CNN standards, associated with white supremacists?
Yes. Yes, it would.
How'd that happen?
There's nobody, you know, I dislike white supremacists, you know, a 10 out of 10.
But I also don't think they exist, in the sense that I've never met one, never seen one on TV in the last 20 years or so.
I think they used to exist, but I don't think anybody has the supremacist part.
There are plenty of racists, of course.
Racists are common.
But the supremacist part?
That went away a long time ago.
It's mostly the opposite of that, in terms of how they think about themselves.
So then I clicked through, and I'm reading about this, and they made a distinction between antifa and anarchists.
So they said, well, you got your antifa, but then separately you got your anarchist.
Uh-huh, uh-huh.
Is that what's happening?
Are the anarchists...
Do they have their own little group and they're not part of Antifa?
Which Antifa are you looking at?
Because the Antifa I'm looking at are anarchists.
But they've decided that they're separate groups so that they can make Antifa a smaller impact.
But here's the even funnier part.
They called the far-left extremists Would you say that the far-left extremists are Antifa?
Or are they a separate group and Antifa is over here?
I don't know what Antifa you're looking at, but I think they're far-left extremists and anarchists.
So CNN has broken them into like three separate groups so that they all seem smaller.
What's that sound like?
What does that sound like?
Yeah. It's the same trick that they're doing with the framing, of framing race as the major frame.
If they can give you the frame, then they've given you your opinion.
If they allow you to frame it this way, that there are all these separate individual groups and they're all really tiny, then there's no antifa.
If you accept the frame...
They've given you an opinion, and you think you made up your own opinion, and it didn't happen.
It just didn't happen. They gave you an opinion, and you thought it was your own.
That's how framing works.
So, this is really clever.
I've got to say it's clever.
I can't take that away from them.
General Mattis, turns out he's an idiot.
I used to have such respect for General Mattis, and then he got fired, and I thought, oh, this is going to be bad.
And as soon as he got fired, everything turned good on the battleground.
Am I right about that?
I may have false memories of this because I'm just going by memory.
But it seemed to me that the turning point when the United States made gains and finally could get out of the Middle East and start withdrawing forces...
Wasn't the positive turning point when Trump fired Mattis?
I'm not imagining that, right?
So I think Mattis doesn't like the president.
We know that. And he is very much against the president bringing in the military for these protesters.
Now, here's the thing that makes Mattis an idiot.
Do you think that the president Wanted anybody in the military to actually shoot anybody?
I don't think so.
I think the president really, really didn't want anybody to get shot.
Like really, really didn't want anybody to get shot.
Or hurt. Do you know a massive military presence with full camo helmets and whatever firepower they had?
I don't know what kind of weapons the soldiers had, but they had the big ones.
We're not talking about the sidearm that's holstered and the mace.
The military was the military.
They came in with full armor, You know, strapped with weapons of every kind.
Now, if you're a looter and you see any one of those guys anywhere in the area, right?
Let's say there are 20 of you.
20 looters, normally 20 would be enough, right?
You would overwhelm police.
If 20 looters came to a store and they looked over and And looking at them was one trained military person, full camo, with a long rifle, that may be the wrong term, but some kind of a military rifle, strapped with ammo, military vest, trained to kill.
Somebody's saying M4 and somebody's saying M16, so we don't know.
Now, you're a looter, and you've got 20 of them.
You have the numbers. But you look over and you see that guy.
And he's got his gun, and he goes, or whatever you do with, who knows, whatever you do with, you know, take the safety off, whatever he does.
He goes, clicks it off, and then turns it at your group of 20.
What do they do? What do they do?
Do they rob the store?
No. I think they leave.
I think they leave really quickly and nobody gets hurt.
If they had gone in, somebody probably would get hurt.
Because looting is sort of a dangerous thing.
There's broken glass.
There's people fighting with each other over the goods they're stealing.
There's who knows what happens with vigilantes when you leave.
It's a really dangerous situation to let them loot.
But what is a lot less dangerous is a fully trained military person aiming a serious killing machine at your group of 20 and saying, whatever, you know, whatever.
Do what you need to do, but something's going to happen.
And then they just leave.
So the thing that Mattis I don't think understood, I don't think anybody in the news quite understands, is that the whole point of the military was a massive show of force that you didn't have to use.
Trump says this directly.
I mean, the whole point of building up the military is that he doesn't have to use it.
That's expressly what he says.
It's the same play.
We're going to send in massive military force for the express purpose of not using it.
That's the reason you do it.
And even if the military had killed somebody, I think it was very unlikely that was going to happen, frankly.
But if the unlikely thing happened A military killed a person.
It would still be way less death than if it hadn't happened.
Because if they don't have that presence, which in this hypothetical would cause, let's say, one person to get killed that wouldn't have otherwise, they probably saved 15 lives just by being there.
Because things were devolving.
You know that the vigilantes were about two days away, right?
If you're being honest...
Vigilantism was about two days away.
There was going to be somebody with a powerful weapon who was going to start taking people out.
It could have been a shopkeeper.
It could have been anybody.
I don't know. But it was going to happen.
So I think the president's use of military was 100% right with a risk.
It came with a risk.
And people like Mattis just talked about the risk part.
They don't talk about the benefits.
If you're only talking about the risk and you're not talking about what benefits it gave, it looks like the military calmed it down right away.
I think the military presence, I think so, was the primary variable that got us from massive looting to, well, it looks more like a protest now.
I think it worked.
I think the president will never get credit for that.
I think it was 100% successful.
Alright. God, there's so much news today.
It's very newsy time.
Things are getting really busy over the summer.
Alright, let's see.
Oh, the other category that CNN creates, as if this is its own category, is an anti-government group.
So you've got your Antifa, you've got your anarchists, and you've got your anti-government group.
They're all the same.
They're all the same people.
Not CNN. Three different groups.
Alright. Would you like to know how to unhypnotize the hypnotized masses?
Now, the hypnotized masses have been hypnotized by the framing of the media.
So the media said, we've got a big racism problem.
But you look at the statistics and what do you see?
When you look for the big racism problem, specifically the problem of police killing black men at a higher rate than other people.
So when you looked at the statistics to see this problem, where was it?
It wasn't there. So it doesn't show up in the statistics.
In fact, it's the opposite.
That if you only count the number of people who get stopped by police in the first place, just that population, which is the relevant population, more white people get killed by police per capita, you know, of the number of people stopped, than black.
Now, of course, everybody on the right already knows this, right?
You knew this. Tucker Carlson did a show on it.
I saw McCarthy just talked about it on TV. I think The Five has probably talked about it.
Probably every news outlet, I'm sure Breitbart's talked about it, probably every news outlet on the right has reported that the very thing they're marching about, the massive protests overwhelming the country, is actually based on nothing.
That's what the right is reporting.
But on the left, this is as real as it could be because it's a lived experience.
I like that phrase because it's sort of a phrase that needed to happen.
A lived experience.
Because lived experience speaks to the subjectivity of reality.
Now suppose you wanted to talk people out of their frame.
The frame is that there's racism and the police are killing black people at a higher rate.
If you wanted to talk them out of that, how would you do it?
I'm going to teach you how.
Won't work every time.
Doesn't necessarily work instantly.
But it does work.
And I don't know anything else that would work.
And this is a really deep trick in hypnosis.
You ready? This is now you've got a background on how to persuade.
Most of you do if you've been watching me for a while.
You've got a lot of the basics.
You know not to sell past the clothes, but you should make people think past the sale.
You know that you should contrast, you know that you should use visual, etc.
So you know, you've seen a lot of the tools.
But now I'm going to take you into a deeper level.
I'm taking you into some serious shit.
It may not look like it when you first see it, and you're going to say to yourself, I don't know that that would work.
It works. It won't work every time with every person.
Persuasion doesn't work that way.
But it's really powerful.
Have I built it up enough? Let's take a look at it.
It goes like this. This is one of the things we learned in hypnosis class, by the way, as an actual technique.
And it goes like this.
If you want to pop somebody's delusion...
And let's say that you know for sure that they're operating in a delusion that can be easily proven to be a delusion.
Now, in this case, there are statistics.
And those statistics easily prove that it's a delusion.
But people just don't talk about these statistics.
They just act like the statistics don't exist because if they did talk about them, their illusion would pop.
Now, if you say to them, hey, your issue is fake, what are they going to say to you?
You frickin' racist.
You racist.
My issue is real.
Then you say, but look at the statistics.
What do they say?
In the real world, people don't agree with you because you have facts.
We've learned this, right?
You have no chance of persuading with information.
Even if the people agree your information is correct, and even if the information is simple and very clear, which it is in this case.
It's the clearest example that you can see, where if you just show them the statistics and look, number of people dead, black deaths, white deaths, death by cop, you can see that the thing you're marching about actually doesn't exist, the problem you're talking about.
Specifically the death part, not racism in general.
Racism in general we assume to exist, but we're talking about the death by cop problem.
Here is the method.
You agree with the thing that you're trying to debunk, and you amplify it.
You agree, and you amplify it.
It's the amplifying, so the agreeing is just pacing.
If you agree with somebody, they'll listen to you.
If you disagree, they'll just tell you you're wrong and they don't even care what the reasons are.
So you have to agree or you're not in the conversation.
You got that right? Agreeing is your invitation to the conversation.
If you haven't done that, if you start with a disagreement, there's nothing that's happening after that.
You're done before you start.
So you agree, and then you amplify it.
You take their own point Like Stephen Colbert did when he would mock conservative beliefs, he would adopt them and amplify them so that you could see the ridiculousness because he just amplified them a little bit.
Now, if you amplify too much, you get the Stephen Colbert show and it's just humorous.
So the trick is you don't want to amplify that much because then it just looks like a joke.
You want to amplify enough that people can't tell if you're joking.
So here is a sentence that demonstrates that.
So if somebody says, you know, what's your view on this?
You could say, police brutality against black Americans is a huge problem.
That's the agreeing part.
It's a huge problem in every way except statistically.
And you just say this like this makes sense.
Does this make sense?
That it's a huge problem in every way except statistically?
Because this statistically tells you it doesn't exist.
And yet, we see that people are protesting.
We see a video of a guy dying.
We see people upset.
We see looting. So it is true that police brutality against black Americans is a huge problem.
It's true, right? It's totally true.
Because we're seeing protests and the economy being destroyed and we're at each other's necks.
There's no question it's a huge problem in every way, except statistically.
So this is the persuasion technique to pop a delusion.
You've got to get inside it.
It's called getting inside it.
So getting inside it means that you adopt it as your own frame.
So instead of saying, that frame is wrong, it's not about racism, it's about power, it's about Democrats, anything else like that is completely useless.
It's just a waste of talk.
You can't persuade that way.
You've got to agree and then amplify it just enough that somebody else will say, what's that mean?
And you say, I'm agreeing with you.
This is a gigantic problem.
And they say, but what do you mean by except statistically?
Well, you know, if you look at the statistics, there's no support for it, but that doesn't matter.
You agree with them. You say, it doesn't matter.
It's a huge problem in every other way, except for the part, the statistical part.
Now, let's say you say that to somebody and you get their attention.
The hard part is getting people to think about it later.
And they go home and they say, what does it mean to say it's a huge problem in every way except statistically?
That can't be true.
That can't be true, right?
And then you get them to Google it.
So the win is not that they change their mind while they're standing there.
That's not going to happen. They'll never change their mind while you're standing there.
But you can certainly cause them to go home and in the privacy of their own room say, I just need to check this.
Click, click, click, click, click.
Google it, and then you see it, and you say to yourself, oh my God, I've been marching for five days over an issue that isn't even identifiable statistically.
Now, probably what you're going to get, because I've already tested this a little bit, is something like this.
But it is true that the police will hassle black people more than white people.
That just sounds true, doesn't it?
Right? I mean, anecdotally, that seems so obviously true that even I wouldn't believe statistics if the statistics showed...
Let me put it this way.
If I ever saw a statistic that said that black citizens and white citizens are stopped and hassled, just hassled, by the police at the same rate.
Would you believe that statistic?
No! No, you wouldn't.
And even people who are not black wouldn't believe that statistic.
That's not even the slightly credible statistic.
There is a 100% chance that black citizens, peace-loving black citizens, are stopped by police and hassled more than white citizens.
There's no way that's not true.
But I think the argument would shift to that as if anybody disagreed with that.
I don't think anybody disagrees with that.
I think the police agree with that.
I don't know, but I would guess.
Alright, here's some more of those.
So here's another example of agreeing and amplifying.
Are you ready? Now this one goes a little bit too far because you can tell it's a joke.
But it's a good example.
But just be aware, it goes a little too far, where this one didn't.
Every way except statistically doesn't go too far.
But this one does, so you can tell the difference.
And it goes like this.
And I tweeted this today. I said, I demand change, which is what the protesters are demanding.
I demand change.
I also demand that you not know specifically what change I'm talking about, so you can't help.
Because that's what the protesters are saying.
Except I've amplified it a little.
What they're saying is we demand change.
And what they're also not saying is specifically what changed.
And if they did, would you be willing to talk about it and maybe help?
Probably. Why wouldn't you?
You're a helpful person.
If somebody had a problem and they had a specific suggestion, you'd at least talk about it.
You'd at least discuss it.
So, here's the sentence again, just so you can appreciate it.
I demand change.
I also demand that you not know specifically what change I want, so you can't help.
That's exactly what they're asking for, but not in those words.
I just amplified it a little bit.
Here's another one. Let's keep rich people in power by using identity politics.
So the left agrees that identity politics is a useful tool.
And say that, by the way. That's not my impression of what they think.
They say that directly.
There are a number of quotes from people on the left saying it in plain language.
Identity politics is a useful tool for getting stuff done.
So what if you agree with them?
Because there's nobody who's arguing your point That if you use identity politics, it has the effect of dividing us, and that allows the rich people to stay in power, because as long as the public is divided, they don't have enough combined power to go take the money from the rich people.
The moment they got together and realized it's not about race, they would have all the power, they would raise the taxes on the rich, and they would just take their money.
So as a rich person, On behalf of all rich people, I can't say identity politics is bad for me, because it's kind of good for me, if you know what I mean.
I mean, in a bad way, it's good for me.
So I'm not laughing in the ha ha ha, you know, it's good for me.
I'm laughing at the absurdity of it.
I'm laughing that I can be a rich person, and I can tell you in public, the moment you stop fighting about identity politics, I'm going to lose all of my shit.
Because low-income people would just vote higher taxes.
And then I would have to pay my taxes or go to jail.
And then they would have all my shit.
So do I want identity politics to completely stop?
Well, I'd like it to calm down a little bit so nobody's dying and the economy can get running.
But is it good for me to get rid of identity politics?
Not financially.
Not financially.
It's not.
So be honest about that.
How do you know that identity politics is good for rich people?
Well, I haven't checked the stock market today.
But as of yesterday, the stock market was telling us that, yep, it looks like the S&P 500 is up again today, which tells you that rich people, wait for it, rich people, wait for it, think that the protests and the identity politics are good for them.
That's right. Rich people have bid up the stock market because who has money to put in stocks?
Not poor people.
Poor people did not move the stock market, only rich people.
Rich people are looking at racial riots and bidding the stock market up.
Are there any other questions?
Rich people are looking at racial division and bidding stocks It's not a coincidence.
If everybody got together, the stock market would plunge.
Alright. But luckily it won't happen because the media is so good at dividing us.
Ben Shapiro, others have made this point, but Ben Shapiro said it well.
When the The police officer who was charged in the George Floyd death, the main guy with the knee, he was charged with third degree murder originally, and then that got raised by Keith Ellison to second degree.
Now, as a crowd pleaser, that was probably a good play.
It's kind of a crowd pleasing thing to increase the charge, and then he also charged the other cops who were involved.
Again, another crowd pleaser.
But it creates a new risk as Ben Shapiro points out.
He says, elevation of Floyd killing to second degree is quite risky.
It requires proving intent to kill rather than depraved indifference to human life, and that's a heavy legal burden.
Do you think there's even the slightest chance that the prosecution can prove intent to kill?
Do you think there's even the slightest chance?
And the answer is, nope.
There really isn't.
There isn't the slightest chance.
So why would Keith Ellison change the charge to something that guarantees there won't be a conviction?
Why do you think?
It guarantees a second to riot.
So by charging, overcharging, and making intent to kill part of the charge, which can't be proven.
Unless there's some whole new story we don't know about, because it said that they worked at the same place, but we think they didn't meet because they worked at different times, and one was indoors and one was out.
So they may have never met.
We don't know if they did, but they did work at the same place.
So it's possible that the prosecution has a theory That shows intent.
But if the only way they're going to try to show intent is by the actions that happened on film, if that's all they have, not a chance.
There's no chance.
Because the conversation that they had, and has been reported as true, there were witnesses, but the conversation was about keeping him alive.
Specifically, about keeping him alive.
Now, you don't believe he's going to get off Let me give you my defense.
And again, I'll frame this by saying I watched the same video all of you watched.
It looked like a crime to me.
So can we start all on the same page?
It looked like a crime to me.
So we're not going to argue about that.
I'm not a lawyer.
So I'm not going to say first degree, second degree, third degree.
I think you need a little more training to talk about that stuff in public.
Ben Shapiro has the training, so I quote him rather than giving you my opinion on the law.
So here's the defense of George Floyd's killer that is guaranteed to work, whether you like it or not.
I'm not saying I want it to work.
Again, it looked like a crime.
Probably there needs to be some, you know, justice for that.
But legally, God does he have a good case.
And it goes like this.
And by the way, the thing I'm going to say next, you've never heard before.
You've never heard what I'm going to say next.
And when you hear it, you're going to say, shit, there's definitely going to be a second riot.
Here it is. Did you hear that George Floyd tested positive for coronavirus?
So that happened last night, we heard it, or yesterday.
So that's a fact.
So in evidence, the coroner's report shows that he tested positive for coronavirus.
Now, just store that fact.
Just keep that in your head. Now, you're a police officer in the age of coronavirus.
You're in the middle of a pandemic.
You're not wearing a face mask or protective gear.
You stop somebody who is clearly under the influence.
This person under the influence, do they face you, or do they turn their back away from you when they talk to you?
You know the answer.
Everybody faces a police officer.
In fact, you face anybody you're talking to.
Now, in the police officer world, given that they apparently felt they needed to subdue him for whatever he was doing, We don't know all the details, but it's clear there was some kind of a scuffle and some kind of a subduing.
We don't know that that necessarily means resisting arrest, but it's implied.
We just don't have any confirmation of that.
In the act of trying to subdue this person who is large and can't be reasoned with because of the drugs, anybody on the right kind of drugs can't be reasoned with, but He's facing you.
He's talking. He's spitting because he's a drunk.
He's inebriated. People who are inebriated.
There's some stuff coming out, right?
There's some spray. Now, this police officer has to subdue this person and they have to subdue every part of them because it's actually the only thing you can do.
If somebody is in a zombie-like drug state, you can't reason with them.
You can't even hurt them.
In other words, they're not even afraid of pain.
So pain doesn't work, threats don't work, negotiating doesn't work, offering them rewards wouldn't work.
There is no other solution for somebody who's in a zombie state, except restraining every part of their body.
That's why three police were trying to do it.
Now, if you're trying to restrain somebody in the age of coronavirus, and you don't want their face in your face, Because then you could die from coronavirus.
What do you do about it?
How do you keep somebody's face not facing you?
Well, the first thing you do is you might try to control them facing the other direction.
So in other words, if you had them face up, Your face would be somewhere around his face.
That's not what you're looking for.
And plus, maybe he could fight back easily because his knees would be up instead of down.
You don't want your suspect to be able to get his knees up because then he can knee anything even if he's handcuffed.
So it's good to have him on their face just for control.
But in addition, what was the police officer supposed to do?
Was he supposed to hold George's head with his hands To keep it faced away from him, because he couldn't reason with him, right?
But he didn't want his face facing his.
Hands? Not so good.
Because that's, you know, hands might be where you pick it up.
You know, you don't want to touch a suspect's face if he's got coronavirus.
Now you might say to yourself, they didn't know he had coronavirus.
No, they didn't. But they did know, they did know that there was a chance of it.
And they did know that all the experts say you should treat everybody like they might have it.
And what we watched was somebody who was treating a suspect like he had coronavirus.
In other words, putting his knee in a place that would prevent him from turning his head or getting up.
Because if he turned his head or got up, he would be dangerous to the police because of coronavirus.
Now, do you believe that the police were thinking of coronavirus at the time?
I don't. Not really.
Does it give you all the reasonable doubt you need?
Yes. Yes, it does.
We have no information about what they were thinking.
We only know what they did.
You can't really know what people are thinking.
But you can assume that the defense will say, in the age of coronavirus, It was very important, if you can't control a suspect, that at the very least, you guarantee he's not facing you.
You gotta guarantee that because of the health situation.
It's over. Yeah, no, but you didn't think about that, did you?
I also didn't think about it until we heard the news that he tested positive.
Now you tell that story, and then you add at the end of it, and by the way, They didn't know if he had coronavirus, but he did test positive, which doesn't mean he was able to spread it, because we don't know the timing of things, but he did test positive.
There's not the slightest chance he can get convicted, not even a little bit.
Remember, you have to convince 12 people of this.
Now, could you convince nine people that he was guilty anyway?
Sure. You could probably convince nine out of twelve.
No conviction. So, yeah, there was the other issue of, we may find out more about, allegedly, there was something in his hand that might have been drugs, and did he take a bunch of drugs so they wouldn't be discovered?
Is that why the cops were wrestling with him in the back seat?
Because he tried to put the drugs in his mouth?
Is that what was happening? We don't know.
So there's a whole bunch of stuff we're going to learn that will almost certainly change how you look at it.
Alright. By the way, when I was talking about the real frame is people with low income are really on the same team, they just don't know it because of this identity politics frame.
That's the same thing Chappelle said.
So Dave Chappelle said One of his funniest routines is when he talks about the fact that he doesn't get discriminated against because he's rich.
Dave Chappelle is about as woke as you could possibly be.
Because he understands that being rich was the main variable.
And as soon as he was rich, well, he can join any country club he wants.
Turns out Dave Chappelle can do anything he wants.
Doesn't matter if he's black or anything.
As long as he's rich, O.J. Simpson once said something like that.
Allegedly. Who knows? I watched an O.J. Simpson...
I wish my gardener were not leaf-blowing right below my window right now.
I don't know how much you can hear that.
So O.J. said at one point, allegedly in a biography I saw about him, that he said he wasn't black, he was O.J. And he was right.
Yeah, OJ is not black, he's OJ. Meaning that his reputation, his talent, his money, his fame, in this case also for bad reasons of fame, but who he was was so much bigger than his racial identity that it just didn't even matter anymore.
Chappelle was saying the same thing.
So, anyway, I'm not the only person saying this.
What do you think about the people getting on their knees to the protesters?
Are you having the same reaction to that that I am?
Which is, it's not a good look, but hey, if they want to do that.
There's another hydroxychloroquine study that says it doesn't work at all.
It's a controlled clinical trial that said that hydroxychloroquine Didn't work at all for reducing the symptoms, even if you took it as a prophylactics.
It took about a minute and a half for the smartest people on Twitter to say, all right, this will be debunked in, I said 48 hours.
So my guess was that that study would be debunked in 48 hours.
It took less than a day.
And somebody smart went in and said, your headline says that it doesn't work.
But your data says it does.
That's right. The summary was that it doesn't work, but the data very clearly says it does.
Now it says it does at a rate of like 17% better than the alternative.
17% is a pretty big deal.
If you had a 70% reduction in, you know, coronavirus risk, But you added to that risk the risk from the meds themselves, because the hydroxychloroquine has a little bit of a risk as well.
Would you take a 17% advantage for the risk of a drug that's been approved for, I don't know, 50 years, and if you don't have a heart problem it doesn't seem to be any problem, and if you're only taking it for two weeks it doesn't seem to be any problem at all?
Would you take that risk? Of course you would.
You would take that in a heartbeat.
And guess how they got from 17% benefit down to not statistically valid.
Do you know how they got from that?
They did the math wrong.
That's right. They did the math wrong.
And not even hard math.
Simple math. And one of the smart critics came in and said, ah, here are your own numbers.
Here's how you do math.
It was devastating.
I think it's true. I mean, the critics sounded more right than the study.
You should check out Candace Owens' video that's got 1.2 million views.
I won't repeat her argument because it's just better if you hear from her.
It is the best thing I've seen her do so far, and she's done a lot of good things.
So Candace Owens' argument about George Floyd is, I would say, is just one of the best presented livestream videos that's now recorded.
You can watch it. Just one of the best performances plus argument that you'll ever see.
Because she has the whole package.
She has the whole talent stack.
She doesn't just have good points.
But man, is she good on camera.
That's a really separate skill.
If you've watched anybody else on Periscope, can I have some agreement that almost everybody sucks on livestream?
Almost everybody is terrible.
Did you watch Obama? Obama on livestream?
Oh my God, he's terrible.
He's terrible. That's right.
Obama, who you believe is like a media...
I mean, he's just great on camera, great in interviews, great in debates.
You think that Obama was like one of the champions of that realm.
And then you watch him on a live stream, just a little bit different technology with not as much production values, and he disappeared.
That's right. His charisma disappeared on live stream because it's a different medium.
And he was just boring, and you could barely listen to him.
Then Candace comes on, and you're like, okay, I can't even turn this off.
I mean, she is so engaging.
She has the whole package, the presentation.
She's got the look.
I don't mean in a sexist way.
She just has a look.
That could apply to male or female or any gender you want.
She just has the presence.
That's a better way to say it.
I'll say the presence, not the look.
So check that out.
It's got like 1.2 million views worth every view.
Export Selection