Episode 1022 Scott Adams: Dale the Anti-Trumper Explains Defunding the Police. Antifa, Free Speech I Don't Have and More
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
CNN coverage of "Defund the Police" movement
Dale explains who you call after defunding the police
Solutions that won't make any difference
President Trump's instincts and leadership
Whiteboard: Psychology of the Economy
National database of police brutality
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
And what do you need to enjoy Your first moments of coffee with Scott Adams.
Yes, it's the coffee part.
Or a beverage. And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better, including the pandemic, including the riots, including racial strife.
Yeah, it does.
It's the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Go! Mmm, yep.
Temperature's going down.
Well, the news is just full of little nuggets for us to discuss.
But first, I must tell you this little bit of good news.
Don't you like to start with the good news?
Well, maybe it wasn't good news for you, but it is for me.
So yesterday was my birthday, and I went out to dinner.
I went to, I know this is hard to believe, a restaurant.
Have you heard of those? It's a place you go to, they prepare the food for you, they'll bring it to a table, they'll serve it to you.
And all you have to do is pay money.
It's a really good business model.
I think it's going to catch on.
And while the restaurants in my town are not open, The county, one county over, the restaurants were open for outdoor seating.
So I got to have my first outdoor seating restaurant experience since...
I don't know.
I don't remember the last time I went to a restaurant.
January, maybe?
And I can't tell you how happy I was.
Oh, my God.
It was just this little feeling of normality, this little feeling of freedom.
Just take a drive, stop at a restaurant, have food.
It was incredible!
So let me tell you this.
If you have not yet experienced the freedom of, you know, a little bit of freedom of movement from the coronavirus, when you do, when you do, it's as good as you think.
It's going to be just as good as you think.
Really, really good. So look forward to that.
Now, there's a lot of the news that I can't talk about today.
As you know, as a white man in America, I don't have free speech the way lots of other people do.
Now, should I ever have free speech, what I'd love to do is try to help with the police situation and the racial strife.
I can sort of talk around the edges, but since I'm not allowed to mention any data, and I'm not allowed to actually give a real honest opinion on anything, I can only sort of talk about it around the edges, and we'll do that today.
Now, because I don't have freedom of speech, that was one of several motivations for making an announcement now.
You ready? Announcement time!
I've made a small investment in the Locals platform.
Now I've told you before that I'm moving a lot of my content, especially the stuff that I don't show other places, over to Locals, Locals.com, and that's a subscription service, so I can't be cancelled.
So because I have no freedom of speech, not in any practical sense, I mean the government obviously lets me say anything I want, but in terms of society, the way it's organized, In a practical sense, I don't have freedom of speech.
But I could do a lot more within locals, because the odds of me being cancelled there are low, and because it's only people who want to hear what I have to say, so it's self-selecting.
But beyond that, I can't be kicked off that platform just for having an opinion.
So my source of income would not be threatened I don't have any opinions that, in my opinion, would be the least bit offensive if I could say them.
But we don't have the kind of freedom of speech where you can say inoffensive things.
If somebody just has a different opinion.
So that's going on.
Alright. Did you watch...
Did any of you try to watch CNN last night?
I tell you this all the time, and there's no joke to this at all.
I watch CNN for the laughs.
And sometimes it's really funny.
Last night was amazing.
So, as you know...
The protesters have sort of cumulatively come up with this idea of defunding the police, and in fact Minneapolis has the votes to do that.
Looks like the city council wants to, at least some of them, want to defund the police.
Now, as you might imagine, given that it's an election year, in an election year, Do you think that the professionals, let's say the professional news people of CNN, the professional Democratic advisors, the professional Democrats who have held office before at a high level, do you think any of them think it's a good idea to be anti-police in an election year?
I doubt it.
I doubt any of the professionals think that's a good idea.
And you can see that in play hilariously as...
As CNN tried to coach its...
They literally were trying to coach their guests to say the right thing because they were saying the wrong thing so far.
And they were trying to coach them into explaining what defunding the police means.
And I could go through the various examples.
So there was the...
Let's see, you had the...
Let's see, you had the...
Well, a lot of people weighed in.
You had the mayor of something who had one opinion.
Oh, yeah. So you had the council president, Lisa Bender.
She had one opinion. There's the D.C. mayor, Muriel Bowser.
There's Yamiche Elsindor, who had some things to say about it.
NAACP, John Oliver.
He was talking about it last night.
Here's what's interesting about all the people who are explaining to us What defund the police means?
They all have different explanations.
And I thought the easiest way to kind of cover this territory is by interviewing Dale, the anti-Trumper.
So, if you haven't met Dale, Dale just doesn't like President Trump.
And whatever position President Trump takes, you can find Dale on the other side.
But sometimes it's harder than other times because sometimes the other side is a little bit murky.
So I thought I would just interview Dale and find out.
So, Dale, I know you're very anti-Trump, which doesn't matter, of course, because we're not talking about that.
We're just talking about this defund the police thing.
How does that work?
If you defund the police, who would you call if you had, let's say, a home break?
For example, who would you call?
Well, I hear what you say, and I acknowledge it, and I value your opinion.
In that case, you would call your white privilege And good luck with that, your white privilege.
Just call your white privilege.
Dale, I don't have a number for my white privilege.
And my white privilege is not armed.
And I think you're giving me advice that would cause me to be slain by armed intruders.
Sounds like what you're saying.
Well, look who's so concerned about his white privilege life.
See how it feels. How does it feel now?
Okay, Dale, I hear what you're saying, but this isn't helping me.
Like, how do you help the community?
And what does it really mean to defund the police?
You mean no police at all?
No! Oh, you're so confused.
When I say defund the police...
I mean it the way Joe Biden explains it, for example.
Joe Biden says, we don't want to defund the police.
We want to take money away from them if they're not doing what we want them to do, which would be, if I may use his exact words, if they don't meet certain basic standards of decency and honorableness.
Clear? Very clear.
Well, Dale, so the idea is not to take money away from the police, but rather to not give money to the police that you would normally give them?
Exactly. Well, Dale, that sounds a lot like defunding the police.
I mean, at least from a federal level, as Joe Biden is talking about it.
No. Taking money from the police...
That's nothing like defunding the police.
What kind of stupid bubble are you in over in there, Fox News?
Stupid fool.
Okay, Dale. Still trying to understand this.
So, what about all the functions of the police?
You know, the part where they have to face down an armed robber, for example.
Who would do that?
Scott, Scott, Scott, Scott.
We're not talking about getting rid of the police.
Who told you that?
Some right-wing conspirator?
Conspiracy theory person?
Defund the police doesn't mean get rid of all the police.
I don't even know what you're thinking. What it means is that for those police functions, such as, let's say, a call if you have somebody who has mental health problems, you would send a non-police Person, instead of the police.
And then the non-police person, who would not have a gun, could not kill anybody with their gun.
So better. Much better.
Alright, alright.
I kind of almost understand that, but here's the part I don't understand.
Would the situations that you're sending an unarmed person, who's not a police officer, are you sending them into situations that were Peaceful and calm and didn't really have much opportunity for trouble in the first place?
That's right. That's exactly right.
Okay, but Dale, were those the situations in which people were getting killed?
Because it sounds to me like the part you're defunding is all the stuff that wasn't a problem in the first place.
That's racist. I don't know how that's racist.
I'm literally just talking about budget categories.
That's it. That's it.
Well, looks like you've been listening to a little bit too much Tucker Carlson, if you know what I mean.
I don't know what you mean.
I do not know what you mean.
Racist. And scene.
All right. So that pretty much covers the entire territory.
The people who actually know what they're doing are panicked because this whole defund the police thing, there's just no way to spin this into a positive.
But it turns out that you think it's crazy, right?
Don't you think it's kind of crazy to defund the police?
But there's actually a town, was it in New Jersey, that actually disbanded their police department.
Can you believe that? Yeah, there was an actual town that disbanded its police department.
And I might have to bring Dale back to explain what it means to get rid of your police.
And it hasn't worked out that poorly, if you check back.
They got rid of the police department, and it's not that bad.
And let Dale explain to you how they did it.
Dale... Can you explain that town that did get rid of, I guess it was a few years ago, that got rid of their entire police department and it seems to be working okay.
How did they do that? Well, let me explain it to you.
Racist. The way it works is you take the police department and you get rid of them all.
Get rid of all of them.
Step one. Step two.
You create a police department to replace them.
Get it? No.
I thought you were getting rid of the police department.
Are you saying they got rid of the police department and then replaced them with the police department?
Is that the same as getting rid of the police?
Well, okay. I guess I have to explain everything.
Let's get into the details.
I assumed you were smart enough.
I don't understand what I was talking about, but we'll dig into the details.
They get rid of the entire police force.
You get that, right? Do you understand that yet?
Yes, I do.
Okay, alright, hold that thought.
They get rid of the total police department, then they replace it with the police department.
Are you following? Are you following this at all?
No, I'm not.
Alright, one other fact that you need to know that will explain this.
You get rid of the police department, you replace them with the police department, but you don't call them a police department.
You arm them, you give them uniforms, but they're not police.
They're just not. We just call them something else.
Pretty good, huh? Alright, alright.
We'll talk later. So, you can't say it hasn't been tried and worked.
It totally worked when they got rid of the police department and replaced it with the police department.
Now, the story just below that level is that the existing police department they got rid of was so corrupt that they couldn't fix it.
It was actually so corrupt They're like, we can't even fix this.
So basically it was a trick to fire all the police.
So it wasn't really defunding the police.
They were just corrupt, so they wanted to get rid of them all.
So they just changed the name.
Coincidentally, that is exactly the topic of my comic in Dilbert yesterday.
It was either yesterday or the day before.
It was exactly that.
Oh no! Yeah, we're going to get rid of the police and then replace them with police.
All right, the president of the NAACP won't even back the defund the police thing because the president doesn't know what it means.
The president of the NAACP. Apparently, the president, Derek Johnson, he backs the energy behind it, but he didn't know what it was exactly because everybody's got a different idea.
So you got that.
The funniest was when Chris Cuomo was interviewing...
You should actually see this.
So I tweeted this yesterday.
You can find it in my Twitter feed.
So he was interviewing Lisa Bender, the Minneapolis city council president.
And so she was talking about what it means to get rid of the police.
And she said that was more aspirational.
But she wouldn't say that until Chris Cuomo just badgered her to say it was aspirational.
He kept trying to give her an out.
Well, you don't mean get rid of the police.
You don't mean you could right away.
He kept trying to nudge her, and then finally he was just shoving her.
Just shoving her. Say aspirational.
Please, I can't let you go until you say the word.
Just say the word. Just say aspirational.
Please, please just say aspirational.
And then I think she used the word and he was okay with it.
Then they could go on.
John Oliver desperately tried to explain it away by saying that only the stuff that wasn't dangerous in the first place would move to other agencies.
And I'm thinking to myself, does he think nobody's going to notice that the stuff they want to take away from police was the stuff that nobody got hurt with anyway?
Unless it was some weird, tragic situation.
Alright. Now, on the productive side of things, it turns out that there's some legislation from the Democrats, I think, primarily Democrats.
It's called the Justice and Policing Act.
I think Kamala Harris and a bunch of others are involved in this.
And here are the things on the list.
Now, see if you would have any disagreement with anything on this list.
Because it's being presented as just sort of common sense stuff that doesn't have any political element to it.
See if you agree. Do these things, are they just common sense or not?
Alright, so number one, no more choke holds and carotid, I guess that's the carotid artery holds.
So I think that's what would have kept George Floyd alive.
No more no-knock warrants in drug cases.
Deadly force may only be used as a last resort, and officers must employ de-escalation techniques first.
Are you telling me that's not already part of the police force?
Is there any part of the police force that allows the police to use deadly force before they've tried other things?
I don't know. So, the no-knock thing certainly makes sense.
Alright, establishing a use-of-force standard in enabling the prosecution of police for reckless in addition to willful misconduct.
So, reckless.
It's sort of a hard-to-enforce standard, but I'm sure the law has dealt with things like that before.
So, are you telling me that there's not already a A use of force standard in the police department?
Does that not exist?
Already? I don't know.
Enabling victims to recover civil damages by eliminating qualified immunity when police violate our constitutional rights.
I think you'd have to be a lawyer and know a lot more about that to know the ins and outs of that.
I mean, it sounds okay, on the surface.
But I think somebody who knows more about this would have a deeper opinion.
Improving the use of pattern and practice investigations.
So, pattern and practice, meaning looking for statistical signs of discrimination and racism, I guess.
Alright, how about establishing a first-ever national database on police misconduct?
Where have you ever heard that idea before?
Where was the first time you ever heard, why don't we have a national database So that we can all be on the same page and we know exactly what's going on with all this police abuse and racism stuff.
The first place you ever heard that was from me.
Now, I'm not saying that they got the idea from me, but I'm pretty sure I'm the first person who sent it to you.
I'd never heard of the idea before I was talking about it a few years ago.
But I'm going to talk about that one in a minute.
Let me go through the list. We'll get back to that database.
Requiring local police to take equipment made for war off the streets, so not using any of the really expensive stuff.
I don't know. Have we used it before?
I've got to tell you, I've never been the one who was too worried about the military equipment on the streets, if they thought they needed it, because I didn't think it was going to become a trend or something.
Or become the beginning of some kind of a war or anything like that.
But from a psychological perspective, I can see the benefit of not looking like you're a military dictatorship.
It's worth talking about.
Requiring federal police to wear body cams and for marked police vehicles to have dashboard cams.
Marked federal police vehicles.
This is only federal police.
So that's the only thing they can influence, not the state police.
So I don't know if that makes any difference if it's only the federal police who have body cams.
But let's get back to the database one.
What's going to happen when there's a database of police behavior?
How much racism are they going to find when there's a national standard database so they can find the What's it called?
The pattern and practice that identifies all the racism in the police department.
How much are they going to find once they're actually tracking it in a standardized way?
What do you think?
Well, if I had freedom of speech, I could dig into that, but I don't, so I won't.
Here's what's missing.
What's missing is some kind of a standard for when suspects who are under police control ask for medical help.
Because that feels like a big category that this ignores, right?
What happens when the suspect is saying, I can't breathe, even if you're not using the chokeholds and carotid holds?
So even if you're not choking them, I don't think it's unusual for suspects to say, I can't breathe, I need medical help.
So what do you do? That feels like that's not handled by these ideas.
So here's the most important thing you need to know about this legislation.
It wouldn't have any impact on the protests, would it?
Was there anything on this list that would make the protesters happy?
I don't think so, right?
I don't think there's anything on this list that would make the protesters happy.
So you've got the government and the Democrats working desperately to do something that looks useful, and they've created a list of things that sound pretty good.
Gotta say, I don't have any knock whatsoever on their list.
I think people who are smarter than I am should look at it, especially the legal stuff, somebody who's got some police experience, and tell us the pluses and minuses.
Maybe the entire list will make it through.
So it looks like a good practical attempt to do something that would be useful, but it has no implications for the protests.
None of this stuff is going to make the protesters happy.
Do you think it will?
I can't imagine it would.
So you have this weird world where solutions are being worked out that by their design couldn't make any difference.
So Alright.
I've been wondering about how history will see President Trump's instincts.
You know, he always famously talks about following his instincts, and we've seen that with the coronavirus situation better than anything else.
Because the one thing that distinguishes the coronavirus is that all of our data was in question.
I don't know if we...
It's sort of a rare situation.
When everything that we heard about the coronavirus, everything we heard about the medical situation, what we should and should not do, it was just all wrong.
Just everything was wrong.
So he had to have a...
Scott, you had a knockdown argument.
Males versus females.
Stops seem sexist.
Oh yeah. Yes, that was a...
I'll just change topic for a moment.
So it was Van Jones who said that the female leaders did such a better job than the male leaders on dealing with coronavirus.
And I thought to myself, how is that not sexist?
Really, how is that not sexist?
Anyway, that's another category of things that I'm not allowed to talk about because I don't have...
I don't have functional freedom of speech, so that's another topic.
But let's talk about Trump's instincts.
So one of the things he did by instinct, as much as anything else, was close the airports when the experts said no.
I think his instinct on closing the airports was correct.
Now, he got criticized for not closing down the economy in time.
When we look at this from a historical perspective, will we think that's still true?
That he should have closed things sooner.
I don't know.
Because we opened up things when people thought it was too soon, and it seems to be working out, isn't it?
So if we continue to open up, and the people who said, oh no, it's going to be a second wave and the end of the world, if that doesn't materialize, then it's also going to be harder to argue that he should have closed sooner.
Because I think we're going to find that when you closed, It may not have quite the impact that you hoped it would have.
So that's still an open question.
Now the other thing that Trump was pushing for is the reopening of the economy sooner than some of his critics wanted to open it.
There were a lot of people on his side, but a lot of pushback.
It looks like, it's still early, but it looks like his instincts were right.
That opening up just about now and pushing to make sure that there was some constructive force on the side of opening up, I think history is going to say he was right.
Right? So I think he was right on the airports.
Pure instinct. There was no data to back him up on the airport closing.
Experts said don't do it.
Did it anyway. Pure leadership and instinct and right.
I think he was right on reopening.
And then recently we saw that the two studies that said hydroxychloroquine were dangerous were both withdrawn as being quacks.
They were based on databases that have no credibility and look like they're just made up data.
So Trump was right about hydroxychloroquine in terms of risk management.
I'm not saying he's right that the drug works, because I haven't seen the evidence of that yet that convinces me.
But he was certainly right that the dangers had already been discounted by the fact that the drug had been available for decades.
Turns out those dangers were not true, according to any studies we've seen.
In other words, we haven't seen a study that says that he's wrong.
Looks like his instinct was right on that, too.
But then there's another thing that he gets right better than anybody in the world.
Let's go to the whiteboard. You know, I make this point a lot.
That the economy floats on this cloud of psychology.
The only thing that keeps the economy working is the way we think about it.
So if you didn't think things were going to be good tomorrow, you wouldn't invest today.
And if nobody invests today, tomorrow won't be good.
It's just this circular kind of psychological support that you have to have optimism, you have to think things are going right, And so long as you don't have any shortages, you're not running out of anything that you need to keep the economy running, and we're not. We don't have any shortages of anything in our economies, in the world.
So you've got this very, let's say, vulnerable element here, the psychology.
Because psychology can change in an instant.
You can get a depression just instantly if people's psychology changed.
So that's the only thing that keeps the economy from falling into the flames is what we think about it.
And what we think about it is driven entirely by persuasion.
And we watched the most remarkable thing happen.
We watched the stock market reach levels that I don't think too many people thought were possible at this stage of where we're at.
It doesn't seem possible That the stock market should be as high as it is.
But what it's telling you, it's telling you that this level, this psychology, is rock solid.
That's what it's telling you.
The strength you saw in the stock market, I haven't seen how it's done today.
I would expect it to have at least some down days this week.
It's got to pull back a little. Alright, let's see.
Yeah, okay. So today it's pulling back a little, just like you'd expect it to.
I would have been amazed if it was up again today.
That would have been incredible.
So you'd expect it to be choppy, but man, this psychology level to support the stock market where it is, given all the upheaval from the economy, that's incredible.
Who did this?
Who did that? What is it that's making this cloud, what turned it into a solid?
Only one thing, in my opinion.
Only one thing. Now some people are saying the Fed, and I hear you because the Fed's actions and interest rates make a big difference, but interest rates shouldn't make any difference if you think the economy is going to crumble, right?
Somebody says the Fed did it.
I will give the Fed some credit, but the Fed's actions would be useless if we didn't also believe that the base economy would be fine.
You get that, right? So it is true that the stock market is very influenced by the Federal Reserve and money and interest rates, and that is all favorable at the moment.
But by itself, it would be worthless.
The Fed's actions are not enough to give you this.
So you need the basic stuff.
You needed the stimulus.
You needed enough cash. You needed the interest rates.
But those are only sufficient.
I'm sorry. Those are necessary, but they're not sufficient.
Sufficient came entirely from Trump, in my opinion.
In my opinion, this entire structure is being held up by one person.
Trump. And the reason that he can do that, even though he has such little credibility in terms of fact-checking, he doesn't have much credibility in fact-checking, but even his critics would agree that the fact-checking he fails is either stuff that doesn't matter, it's not important, or it's at least directionally correct.
He's in the right direction anyway.
But there's one thing that even his critics would have a hard time disagreeing with, and it's this.
He is really good at predicting and therefore moving the economy.
I believe that the stock market, you need the Feds, the interest rates low, and you need the stimulus, you need all that, but that where the stock market is now is almost entirely a function of Trump.
I believe that Trump Understanding how this works as well as anyone in the world.
He understands the psychology part of it.
From the very first moment, what has he said about the economy?
From moment one, it's coming back.
It's coming back stronger than you think.
Now we're going to talk about his instincts.
Imagine, if you will, that Trump had been saying this economy is going to come back and it's going to be better than ever.
And our first job report had been worse than we expected.
That could have happened.
It totally could have happened that the first jobs report, this one that looked good, this most recent one, could have been bad.
Could have been worse than it looked.
And then you would have had Trump saying things are going to come back great, but the data would disagree with him.
Pretty big risk, wasn't it?
That was a pretty big risk.
And the president, again, used his instinct to say this is the time to tell the public unambiguously, unambiguously, it's coming back hard.
Now, you've been watching me talking about the economy since things turned down, right?
What have I been telling you consistently and with no sense of hesitation since moment one?
It's part of the reason people watch me.
Is that I was giving you good news.
I was telling you that the economy totally is coming back.
There's no way it's damaged beyond repair.
We weren't even close to that kind of a damage.
And that when we came back, it was going to be screaming.
And that we would have shook the box in enough categories and industries that there would be a lot of innovation that would come out of all that dislocation.
Now, somebody says it's still too early.
Let me explain how this works.
Whoever said it's too early, look at this cloud and understand that that only exists and it's only keeping the economy out of the fire because of the way we think about it.
That's it. It's just the way we think about it that keeps us alive.
It's really that basic.
If you think about it right, You're frickin' rich.
If you think about it wrong, you're all dead.
Now, whoever said it's too early, and I'm getting ahead of myself, being a little too optimistic, help me keep this alive.
Help me keep the cloud alive.
Instead of saying it's too early, say, we're definitely coming back.
We're definitely coming back.
We might come back faster than people think.
There might be a little delay, and then it might ramp up.
But man, are we coming back.
Economy is coming back.
See how this works?
Don't think of it as a prediction.
It is a prediction, but don't think of it that way.
Think of it as, I just solidified the cloud.
So 4,000 people watch this by the time it gets posted in different places.
At least 100,000 people will see this message.
So there will be 100,000 people who saw somebody who has been, if I may be modest, more correct about more things in the last four years than anybody in the public eye.
I think I can back that up at this point.
I've been more correct than more people who are public than anybody about anything political or economic for the last four years.
And I'm telling you with complete certainty The economy is going to come back strong.
Stronger than you could imagine.
Like it'll actually surprise you.
It'll be so strong.
Now that doesn't mean that every single economic report we get between now and the end of time will be all positive.
It doesn't work that way. Things always pop up and down.
But the trend is going to be up.
And it's going to be strongly up.
Now, 100,000 people just heard me say that.
How do you feel about it? Well, I know the answer to that.
I'm very persuasive.
I'm literally a trained hypnotist, and I write about persuasion often.
The fact that I told you that, and I do have a degree in economics, I've got an MBA, and I haven't been wrong very much for years about the big political stuff.
And it should make you feel more confident.
That would be the natural outcome of that.
Now, when you feel more confident, what happens?
You just strengthen the cloud that's holding up the economy.
So I just gifted you with a little extra framework, a little extra structure, to support the cloud.
Because you're part of the process, right?
Your beliefs matter as much as mine.
Everybody's got to get on the same page.
Things are going to work really, really well.
And that's what makes them work.
It's cause and effect.
You know, I always talk about the power of positive thinking.
You don't realize how powerful it is until you learn to filter your experience through that.
The power of positive thinking, it does get you jobs, it does get you a better love life, and it creates the economy.
It literally creates the economy.
Now, do you think it's an accident that this president was influenced by the author of the most Inspirational, influential book on how to basically think your way into a better world.
It's not a coincidence.
What you're seeing, the entire $15 trillion economy...
Let me put it in stark terms.
The Power of Positive Thinking, this little book from decades and decades ago...
I was at 50, 60 years old, whatever it is...
Norman Vincent Peale.
That one person...
Norman Vincent Peale is almost certainly the reason we have a $15 trillion economy.
Because he gifted future generations with that positivity all the way to President Trump, including me, directly, because I was influenced by him as well.
And it's that teaching and that lesson about thinking your way to a better world That made Trump president and it is now supporting the entire 15 trillion dollar economy of the United States upon which much of the rest of the world depends.
One guy with one powerful idea is supporting a 15 trillion dollar economy, the world's biggest military, 370 million people's livelihoods and lives.
One guy Who told you to keep a positive opinion?
Oh, somebody's telling me the economy is $21 trillion.
I missed it by a few trillion.
All right. So that's how powerful it is.
I guess Trump is saying that the election polls that say Biden is way, way ahead and pulling even further ahead.
Trump says that these are suppression polls and they're all rigged.
Now, there are a number of different polls that are in agreement.
But that was also true.
Was that not also true in 2016?
Which is what Trump points out.
And then points out that they were probably...
I think he thinks they were rigged in 2016 as well.
Now, were those polls rigged?
I don't know. Maybe.
I think they're probably rigged a little bit.
But that wouldn't explain necessarily why they're moving in the wrong direction.
I think the answer is almost entirely that people are lying to pollsters.
Let me ask you this.
If you're watching the news, would you tell a stranger you were a Trump supporter?
Even a stranger.
Would you say it to a stranger?
I wouldn't. I wouldn't tell a stranger that.
And in fact, I'd go out of my way To not tell the stranger that.
I don't even want the topic to come up.
If the topic comes up, I'm going to change the subject, if it's a stranger.
If I were talking to a server at a restaurant or just making conversation with somebody in the public realm, I wouldn't say what I do when I'm not there.
So, I think we may find out that lying is behind all of that.
Oh, you saw the tweet from Trump saying that the old protester, you know, the 75-year-old guy that got pushed by police in Buffalo, he fell down and he hurt his head.
Well, Trump is promoting the idea, and this was something you saw on the Internet, that the old man was a provocateur and also an antifa.
And you say to yourself, well, not so sure, but it's out there that there's that accusation.
And then there's something weird he did with his cell phone that looked like he was trying to scan the police radio for the purpose of jamming it or something.
Now, I don't think that's been proven.
That's just sort of out there as a theory.
But I saw this just before I came on.
I saw a video of some younger protesters who were getting in the face of the old man in Buffalo, the 75-year-old man, because they were accusing him of coming there with the intention of getting hurt.
So the younger protesters, before any of this happened, they were trying to get rid of this 75-year-old guy because they thought he was trouble, and they thought he came there to get hurt.
That he was trying to get hurt to be a provocateur.
That's what the young Black Lives Matter friendly protesters were saying to him.
And it's on video.
Now you haven't seen it yet, so you probably still have your old impression of what that was all about.
But I think the president's instincts on this, I think he did it again.
It looks like the president's instincts about this old man were exactly right, that he was just there to get hurt.
And to me, it looked like he took a dive.
Now, everybody who says he's 75, it doesn't take much to knock a 75-year-old on his ass.
When I watched it, It looked like he took a dive.
You know, I watch a lot of soccer where people pretend, you know, they pretend they got hurt.
So maybe I'm just primed to think that people are pretending to be hurt.
But to me, I don't know if he was bleeding.
I didn't see any blood personally.
You know, when people talk about it, they say, well, his head was bleeding.
Maybe. I didn't see any blood.
I can't say it didn't happen, but I didn't see any blood.
More video of Floyd arrest has been shown.
Does it tell you anything different?
Somebody says, the old man was wrong, but he didn't deserve to fall.
But the point is, he may not have fallen.
It looked like he allowed himself to fall, meaning that that's the outcome he wanted.
Trump is 73.
If you pushed Trump, do you think he would fall over?
I don't think so.
Somebody says they want less instinct and more intelligence.
Well, I can see that.
But here's the thing. Intelligence works well when you have data.
And I feel like we never do.
We have data, but it's always wrong.
It's misleading. It's out of context.
It's going to be revised tomorrow.
So in a world where you have lots of data, but it's just all wrong, what else are you going to do?
You need somebody who can just sort of peer into the mess and say, well, we don't know anything, but this seems like good risk management.
Let's go this way. And I think he's good at that.
Somebody said they saw blood.
Oh, let me tell you a story.
Yeah, no. Forget that.
I had an experience recently, but it's not an interesting enough story, in which I had a very vivid false memory of an event.
In other words, I remembered explicitly something which I later confirmed and never happened.
And it's really freaky to have such a clear memory of a thing that never happened.
And you should always take note of that when it happens, because most of you will have that experience.
You'll be sure you saw or heard something, and then you find out proof that even satisfies you it didn't happen.
And remember all those, because those are all the times that they help you to a higher level of awareness.
If you understand that false memories are so common, it has nothing to do with how smart you are, nothing to do with how emotional you are, nothing.
Just false memories are so common, we're suffering from them all the time.
What's your opinion on the second wave?
Well, remember when Trump said, what if it just sort of goes away?
What if it just goes away?
I think he's going to be close to correct.
You know, he was widely mocked for saying, well, maybe summer will come, it'll just go away.
But summer came, and it feels like it's just going away.
Like, how did he get that right?
Now, obviously, there's some history that warm weather should make a difference.
But even the experts were telling Trump, well, no, don't assume this is going away.
And, of course, it didn't go away.
But if you were to look at it on a continuum, from being way, way worse to completely going away, when Trump said, maybe it'll just go away on its own, he's closer to right than wrong.
Because nobody really understood why it suddenly fell off a table.
The sudden change in the curve, which everybody agrees happened in New York City, is impossible to explain.
You can't even explain New York City.
It can't be explained.
So he was right.
Something mysterious happened, and it just sort of went away.
that happened to correspond with the protest, which is probably not a coincidence.
All right.
So, somebody says the old man flopped, but he couldn't catch himself, so he hit his head.
Yeah, I think there's some possibility that that hypothesis is true.
That he fell intentionally because he wanted to fall, but that he's 75 and he didn't do a good job of protecting himself.
If he even tried.
Oh, by the way, he brought a helmet.
So the new video that shows the young people talking to the 75-year-old, the 75-year-old brought a helmet.
So he was expecting brain injuries.
He didn't have his helmet on when he got pushed, though.
Coincidence? I don't know.
All right. Those are the fun things that are happening today.
The things to look for are what happens with that national database Of police brutality.
Because in a few years, once that database is up, we're going to find out who was right.
Because as you know, conservatives almost universally believe that there's no racism when it comes to who gets killed by police.
Specifically killed.
I don't know if conservatives have any opinions.
I don't really hear it.
But I think most people would assume that black Americans get stopped and hassled by the cops more often.
I think that's true, right?
We're sort of on the same page on who gets hassled the most.
But in terms of who gets killed, almost no conservatives believe there's any difference.
Because the data says that.
Now what happens when the people on the left see data for the first time?
Will it change their opinions?
I mean, really, what happens when they see data for the first time?
Because the people on the left don't get any data.
They get misleading data about the number of people killed as a percentage of the population, which is just the wrong way to measure stuff.
If they start measuring things the way things should be measured and have a real database of what's happening, the discrimination is going to disappear.
Think the Conservatives.
And given that all the data seems to indicate that, the data we have, that's not a bad prediction.
Alright, somebody said the 75-year-old had his own skateboard.
I didn't see a skateboard, but who knows.
Why does it feel like everything in life is a PSYOP, someone asks.
I think because it is.
Certainly everything in the public eye is not what you think.
You know, there's something I've said as sort of an offhand comment before, but I'm going to say it again because the more you hear it, the more it's going to be in your head.
So one of the weird elements of being me is that if you're famous for anything, you end up meeting other famous people.
It's just sort of A natural outgrowth of being famous, you just meet a lot of famous people.
And then you meet famous people, and then you meet powerful people, and then you meet people who are behind the curtain.
Meaning that people often will show me a truth that you've never seen.
For example, I'll have to give you an analogy so I don't tell you the real one.
So years ago, there was a situation in which I got to see one of the biggest secrets of the government.
I actually got to really get into it and see the real details of one of the biggest secrets of our government.
Now, it's not an important one.
It doesn't affect your life in any way.
And the only reason I can't tell it to you It's because it was given in confidence.
And even though it's 20 years later, it was given in confidence.
So I'm not going to repeat it.
But I'll give you an analogy of what it was like.
It would be as if the government took me into Area 54 and showed me the UFOs.
It was sort of like that, but in a different realm.
I actually got to see actual secrets.
And that process has repeated itself many times and especially recently.
And I gotta tell you that when I hear the real story behind any actual story that's in the headlines, it's just always different.
It's always different.
The real story is never the one you see on TV. Never!
Just never! Now, I suppose if it's just so simple, you might get the real story.
But when you start digging into who's funding whom, and who's friends with who, and who's married to who, all the backstory stuff, you always go, oh, oh, okay.
So the story on the news wasn't even close enough.
To telling me what was happening.
It was just this fake version for the public.
So, it's Area 51, not 54.
Yes, thank you for the correction.
Now, nothing military.
So, well, no, I take that back.
It was military. Yeah.
So, I saw a military secret.
I guess you could say that, although it was...
It wasn't a killing device.
But it was something on the fringe of military interest, let's say.
But it wasn't a killing weapon.
All right. Well, I guess you could be guessing for a while.
No, it wasn't anything about, nothing about surveillance.
No, I guess it was, actually.
I take that back.
It was a little bit about surveillance.
I wish I could tell you.
Oh, fuck it. I'm just going to tell you.
I'm just going to tell you, okay?
I actually got to see, behind the scenes, the government's investigation into ESP. So I got to know what the most knowledgeable person in the government knows about ESP. But I can't tell you what they know.
That's it. I wish I could tell you, but I can't.
So that's what it was.
I got to see a peek into the government's best knowledge about whether people have mental abilities beyond other people.
So just imagine that times a thousand.
The stuff I've seen, you can't even believe.
you would not believe well I don't know if there's anything that I wasn't told because the stuff I saw was not nothing that would change national security in any way No risk to national security, let's say that.
