All Episodes
June 17, 2020 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:01:02
Episode 1030 Scott Adams: Let's Talk About the Red Pills Coming

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: Enemy of the People, continues to surprise, pure evil? 95% of people aren't good at analyzing, understanding data A federal database of police misconduct Hypnotized puppets and their puppet-masters Expert credibility and trustworthiness New, unprecedented levels of awareness, coming soon ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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
réalité Well, hello, everybody Come on in, come on in.
It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams, best part of the day, every single time.
Is anybody addicted yet?
Well, then my plan is working, isn't it?
And if you haven't tried the simultaneous sip, let's say you've been resisting.
You're thinking to yourself, I'm not going to take a sip of my beverage at the same time he does.
I'm not going to fall for that persuasion.
Well, you're only hurting yourself because it's the best part of the day and all you need is a cup or 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.
Can you feel it? You can start to feel a build.
Feel it. Feel it.
And now, the simultaneous sip.
Go. Just as advertised.
God, I feel sorry for the people who didn't take a sip.
But maybe next time.
You want to get the dopamine going?
That's how you do it. By the way, that is a hypnosis trick.
It's a benign one, meaning I'm telling you what the trick is and it's good for you.
Which is that if you can pair an activity with something that feels good, and you keep pairing that activity with something that feels good, eventually you'll be able to just do the activity and it'll make you feel good.
It's a little trick that you can use at home.
Well, the enemy of the people continues to surprise because you think you've seen everything evil.
You know, you've lived for a while and you say to yourself, I've probably seen everything that's evil, you know, some form of it.
But now the enemy of the people, some call them CNN, writes an article in which they talk about, was it Brazil, I think, is going to go harder for I think it was Brazil, but it doesn't matter for this point.
And here's how CNN calls prescribing hydroxychloroquine.
Now, if you were going to talk about a medical situation in which actual medical doctors, people who are highly trained in the medical profession, but they're in another country, and they've decided, they've looked at all the data, And they've decided that off-label use of hydroxychloroquine,
which is very common, the off-label part, not the specific off-label part, but they'll use a very common thing using their total medical training and their common sense and their risk management.
Completely normal medical procedure.
I would call that a case of those doctors wanting to Prescribe hydroxychloroquine under certain situations.
Wouldn't the right word be prescribe?
This is CNN's headline that they're pushing it.
Pushing. They literally replaced the obvious word, prescribing, because it's doctors.
It's not one crazy quack doctor.
It's an entire nation, a first world nation, Of highly trained medical doctors who want to prescribe it.
Because they've looked at all the data.
They've looked at the debunked data that CNN in this very article neglected to mention that the argument on the other side is all debunked.
All of it. It's completely debunked.
So the fact that CNN is acting like your doctor and calling out other doctors for quackery.
You know, if you see them calling out one doctor for quackery, wouldn't you say?
Yeah, the question of whether the zinc is part of that was a little unclear in the article as well.
But anyway, you get my point.
It just seems pure evil when you have a A news, sort of a news organization, making medical judgments about an entire country full of medical professionals.
It's one thing to call a doctor a quack.
You know, when you see that, you think, well, probably.
You know, they looked into it.
It's probably a doctor who might be a quack.
But not the whole country.
The whole country full of highly trained doctors?
Yeah, they're pushing it.
They're a bunch of pushers. They're just drug peddlers in that other country.
Feels a little racist, is all I'm saying.
So amazingly, and I don't know how you can explain this, I haven't been canceled yet.
What's going on?
Why have I not been canceled?
I mean, I'm genuinely curious.
I think I know what's happening.
I mean, I could speculate.
But I'll remind you what I tweeted yesterday, and I thought, well, this will get it done.
So let me just tell you what I tweeted to see how close I could get to that line of being cancelled.
Now, for context, the point is not to just get cancelled to see if I can do it, right?
I'm not trying to get cancelled for some, you know, weird brand reason.
Because I don't think it would work out well for me.
But I'm also not afraid of it.
Now the problem is that unless you walk right up to the line of getting cancelled, of going too far, you're also not useful.
You can't be useful so far away from the line of cancellation that you're not saying anything useful or true.
The closer you get to cancelled is the closer you get to making a difference.
And the closer you get to actually getting people to engage and to say, all right, what you're saying is pretty rugged and I hate you, but let's deal with that.
You know, some difficult opinions and in some cases some difficult truths to the degree that we can figure out what is true.
So here's what I tweeted and has not yet canceled me yet.
Number one, no one can point to an example of systemic racism.
Except against whites and Asian-Americans, like in education, for example, upper-level college, upper-level education.
Number two, resisting arrest is the only thing that can get you killed by cops.
I mean, that alone should have gotten me canceled.
And then, and this is the funniest one, reparations would be negative if you calculated them correctly.
Every one of those should have gotten me canceled.
But I think putting three of them together made me less cancelable in a weird way because I think these are three points that nobody really wants to have a conversation about, if you know what I mean.
Anybody who's watched me for even a little bit of a length of time, Probably doesn't want to get into a public conversation with me on these three points.
Am I wrong? Do you think there's anybody who actually has watched me?
You know, I'm not talking about somebody who's never heard of me.
But somebody who's actually watched me for a little while, do you think they want to get in a conversation in public about these three points?
I don't think so.
I think that's the only thing that's keeping me from being cancelled.
Because the act of canceling me would raise my profile.
I don't think that's a good play right now.
So I think I'm being ignored, which is hilarious.
So what do you do when you're being ignored?
Well, you ramp it up a little bit, don't you?
You're just going to ramp it up a little bit.
So those three statements got me close to cancellation, but apparently I didn't make it all the way there.
Now, I don't know if there's some kind of Zeno's paradox happening here where I can always be halfway closer, but I can never reach cancellation.
We're going to find out.
Because let me read my thread from this morning.
I posted my thread at just about the same time I went live.
So most of you haven't seen it.
But let me read it to you in the order that I did the thread.
Now, it's a long thread, and normally I wouldn't want to just read stuff to you on video, but I think it's worth it.
So I started it out this way.
I said, today is the last day of my seven-day challenge to provide a current example of systemic racism in America.
No examples yet, just conceptual takes.
Now, when I say conceptual takes, I mean that people are describing a situation in which it Could happen or is happening.
But describing it is not exactly what I asked for.
What I asked for is an example.
Meaning, here's Bob.
Bob was discriminated against.
Here's my evidence.
And he was discriminated against because the system is racist.
So I'm looking for that clean example.
Here's Bob. Here's what happened.
Here's how the system screwed Bob, and they would not have screwed him had he been white.
But let me continue.
I know you're thinking ahead, and you're thinking to things I'm probably going to get to.
All right, so I started out by saying that nobody has met the challenge yet.
But here's who came closest, and so I continue in my thread.
One view is that racist people in a non-racist system creates systemic racism.
For example, the justice system is colorblind by intention.
That's the way it's designed.
It's supposed to be. But not by outcome.
And I think we'd all agree that if you look at the outcome, there's a There's a big racial disparity in outcome.
But studies can't isolate that variable to find out, you know, I said the reason for different outcomes is assumed to be racism, but studies can't isolate that variable.
You can't isolate that variable because the assumption is it's not active racist being actively racist.
It's rather a whole bunch of people who probably don't know they're racist, this is the assumption, but they're acting that way anyway through unconscious bias.
Do you think that that can be isolated and credibly determined by studies, that somebody has an unconscious bias?
I think maybe you could do it in a controlled clinical setting.
But I don't think there's any chance that you can do it in the wild.
You can't isolate millions of people's unconscious bias in the wild when you have so many other variables.
Let me just mention the most obvious one.
Do you think that everybody who goes through there has the same extenuating circumstances, the same demeanor, The same approach to it?
The same quality of lawyers?
Probably not. I mean, there are lots of things that are going to be different on top of whatever subconscious bias there is, and of course we know there's subconscious bias in all people.
Alright, so, and then I continue.
So here I'm assuming that the outcomes would look racial.
And here we have a new problem.
If, quote, look at the data as an argument for anything, why are we having mass protests about police killing black citizens at a higher rate than other groups when the data says otherwise?
I continue.
If you think the data says police are killing black citizens at a higher rate than other groups...
It is because you're not good at analyzing things which puts you in good company with 95% of the public.
And I think that's fair. In the same way that 95% of us would not be good at analyzing a legal situation because we're not lawyers.
Right? We're not lawyers.
95% of us would not be especially good at diagnosing a complicated medical situation because we're not doctors.
We're not doctors, so of course 95% of us are not good at it.
Another thing that 95% of us are not good at is looking at data and figuring out what it really means and not being misled.
If you're not trained at doing that, like a doctor is or a lawyer is for their professions, you might think you can do it.
But 95% of the public can't, and yet we're making all of our decisions based on data When 95% of the public can't do that.
They can't use data.
They don't know how.
Just like you're not a lawyer, you're not a doctor.
They haven't been trained.
It's not a reasonable expectation that the public would understand data.
Unless it's the simplest, simplest thing, and this isn't.
There are actually levels of complexity.
So then I said maybe 5% of the public knows the numbers you see in the media are intentionally, all in caps, misleading.
For example, if you think it means something that a higher percentage of the black population is killed by police, you are in the 95% who are being duped by data that is misleading.
Don't trust me about the data?
I continue in my thread.
Good call. You shouldn't.
Should anybody trust me about my interpretation of any data?
Any data? No!
No! You shouldn't trust me.
Why would you trust me?
Now, I am very experienced.
I did it for a living. I was a financial analyst.
I've got an economics degree, an MBA. I'm better than most people.
At analyzing data.
But I wouldn't call myself an expert.
I would say I'm probably in the top 5%, but not an expert.
But here's why you shouldn't trust me.
Because we live in a world where nobody is credible.
About anything, really.
Every one of your major institutions in this country, from medical to government to financial, they've all lied to you.
They've all lied to you recently.
There's no such thing as credibility anymore.
You need to kind of find a way to suss out what is true and what isn't on your own, because you can't trust anybody else.
So I wouldn't ask somebody on the left to trust me about any data.
So I said this.
Don't trust me about the data?
Good call. You shouldn't.
Trust the left-leaning people who are experts.
Analyzing data and statistics.
That's fair, right? Trust the people on your own team who are experts at this.
Don't try to be an expert at something you're not an expert at.
Trust your own experts, because they'll sort it out for you.
And then I said, they are all hiding, meaning the experts on the left.
Hear the dog not barking.
Where's that dog?
We're having this big national conversation about what the data shows.
Do you remember seeing all the data experts on the left explaining all the data on television or in newspaper articles?
Well, you might have seen them in the context where they get to speak without being challenged.
You might have seen a left-leaning person give a two-minute interview to a left-leaning data expert.
But is that useful? No, that's just the left talking to itself.
So I said no professional data or statistics expert on the left are helping us sort out the data.
Why? Why?
Why is it that the most useful and obvious people to be in the conversation are completely missing?
I can find idiots, lots of idiots, I can find people who claim to understand data, but don't.
They're not experts. Don't claim to be experts.
I can find every kind of person in the world in those protests.
I can find every kind of person in the world talking on TV, giving their opinions, blogging, making videos.
But you know who I don't see?
A data and statistics expert on the left talking about the stuff that the riots and the protests are about.
Where are they? And if they only talked to other people on the left, you still wouldn't have something.
So, when I said, why don't you see them?
I follow up in the thread and say, you fucking know why.
They would be cancelled by their own team if they told the truth.
Don't believe me? Again, good call.
We live in a world where no one is credible, so let me offer a test of my claim.
Don't trust me. Test it for yourself.
Here's the test. Find me the most credible and left-leaning data-slash-statistics expert, and put that expert in a long-form interview with a well-informed, right-leaning interviewer on the topic of police violence.
Let's say Ben Shapiro, just to put a name to it.
So let's say Ben Shapiro, in a long-form interview, which he does well, Better than just about anybody.
And put their best expert on.
And have them just talk it out.
So we can learn something.
Alright? And then I say, this will not happen.
And you know it won't.
Ask yourself why.
Why won't the most obvious thing happen?
What's the most obvious thing?
Somebody on the right...
Who is skeptical of the data, who is well-informed, having a long-form interview with somebody on the left who actually is an expert and would speak to the data.
You'll never see it.
Why? Why will you never see the one thing that's the only useful thing?
If you told me, well, Scott, there are other useful things, no, there aren't.
No, there aren't. You don't want to see the left talking to the left.
What do you learn from that?
You don't want to see the right talking to the right.
What are you going to learn from that?
And you also don't want to see the right talking to the left in a two-minute TV interview where they just both spew some talking points and time's up.
What good is that?
There's literally one and only one way to get to any better level of understanding, both left and right, You've got to put your champions on the field at the same time.
I choose Ben Shapiro.
You would be my first recruit as somebody who would have enough broad understanding of the situation and the data to have an intelligent, long-form interview.
You're never going to see it.
All right? And then I continue, you know that executive order Trump just signed that creates a national database of police misconduct?
Half the country is in for a big surprise if the data is deemed credible.
Of course, that's a big if.
People will doubt the data if it disagrees.
To be fair, that surprise could go either way.
We don't know which way it'll go.
If you're being honest...
We should be, because we're at that point where maybe we just need to be honest for a change.
If we're being honest, maybe when we collect the data and do a better job of it, the people on the right are going to be shocked.
As in, holy cow, I didn't realize things were that bad.
How can we help? Because if there's one thing that I say over and over again that nobody believes on the left, I don't think if you're black you can believe this.
It just seems unbelievable.
There's nothing that white people like better than helping.
Nothing. We like it better than food.
We like it better than guns.
And we like guns.
Right? A lot of people on the right love guns.
Now, I associate left to Bernie on all social things.
But in terms of talking about it, I like to associate with the right just because I like them better.
People on the right are nicer to me.
Nobody in the right has ever canceled me or even tried.
So I just am more comfortable with people who are good people who are willing to accept me for who I am as long as I don't lie to you, which I think is a fair deal.
So somebody is going to be really surprised when this database of police misconduct gets up and populated to the point where, if it ever gets to that, where we can trust it.
And I don't know which way the surprise is going to go.
But don't we need to know that?
Now what's funny about this is I think Trump is calling people's bluff.
By calling for a national database of police misconduct, how do you read that?
The only way to read that is he doesn't think the data that we have is telling the truth.
Right? You wouldn't ask for better data if you thought you had good data.
That just stands to reason.
He is challenging the data, and I think that's fair, because if there's any disagreement on the data, well, that just makes things worse.
So that's, of course, the smartest, best thing that could be done, which will be called by his critics, not enough, not enough.
I continue in my thread, and I say, canceled culture has forced white people to lie to black people for self-preservation.
No solutions are possible when debate is effectively outlawed.
I mean, not actually in the law, but effectively outlawed.
And the data experts are in hiding.
How do you solve a problem when you can't talk honestly, because you'll be cancelled, and you can't even ask your experts to weigh in?
How in the world?
How in the world? All right.
I get more provocative as we go here.
I say, we are now experiencing mass protests over an issue the data can't find in a context of continuous race relations improvement.
Really, every year has been better.
And everyone started out on the same side after seeing the George Floyd video.
And more white people than black people protested.
You can't get much more agreement than that.
My tweet continues.
How did we get to this absurd point in which the country is being ripped apart by agreement?
We're being ripped apart by agreement.
I mean, the things we disagree on are trivial and we're all willing to run those things to ground.
But the big picture is that whatever we saw in that George Floyd thing, that shit's got to stop.
Whatever that was, we'll let the legal system sort it out.
I'm of the view that you never really know everything that's going on, especially in the beginning.
But whatever that shit was, that's got to stop.
Nobody disagrees with that, right?
So we've got massive protests over agreement.
How do you get to such an absurd situation?
Well, I continue.
The biggest red pill in the world is the realization that your opinions on politics are assigned to you by people who know how to make you believe you made up your own mind.
There's probably some genetic propensity for conservatism or liberalism, but not the policy details, not the specific what do you do about it details.
Most of you know I'm a trained hypnotist and I write about techniques of persuasion.
Viewed through my filter, The current upheaval in the country is predicated on something real and important to fix, racism.
But the way we are acting on it comes from external persuasion.
The way we're acting on it is irrational.
Because remember, we're largely in agreement.
What do you do when you're in agreement?
You sit down, you talk about the solutions, you work it out, you have some votes.
We're not doing that or anything like that.
So, obviously, whatever's happening is divorced now from data and reason.
What caused it?
What caused so many people to leave the field of reason when they had largely won what they were trying to win?
So, then I said this.
I said, I don't see a public trying to find solutions.
Now, people are suggesting solutions, but watch how those solutions are not accepted.
So if you say to yourself, people are trying to find solutions, they keep suggesting solutions.
Somebody suggested this legislation, Trump did this executive order, Black Lives Matter has a list.
Lots of suggestions. Of course, Scott, they're trying to fix it.
No, they're not. No, they're not.
No. You would see us trying to agree on the data if people were trying to fix it.
You would see people say, oh, President Trump, your executive order, that's good stuff.
Can we talk about some other stuff?
We accept where you went on that.
We'd like to see more. You think you'll see that?
No, no, no. You're going to see more puppet fights.
You're going to see the puppets fighting, even when they agree, and even when one of the puppets says, hey, how about this?
Can we talk about this?
Would this work for you?
No. Puppet fight.
That's just what you do when somebody offers you a concession, is you have a puppet fight with them because you're so rational.
So here's what I said.
I don't see a public trying to find solutions.
What I see is hypnotized puppets fighting other hypnotized puppets while the puppet masters cash their checks.
And no, I don't blame George Soros.
This isn't about money influence.
It's about something far more powerful.
And then I concluded this way.
You aren't yet ready for the truth, but you will be.
You're not there yet.
But you will be. So it's coming.
It's coming. Some of the biggest red pills in the world.
Now, when I talk about this, some people wondered, are you talking about a discrete event that you know about, that you're telling us is coming?
No, it's not a discrete event.
What's happening? There are a number of discrete events which look like they're independent events and are, but collectively they're starting to form a tapestry.
That tapestry will be your new understanding of reality.
You are heading to a higher level of awareness.
Not all of you at the same rate, and some of you won't make it at all.
It's an individual journey.
But on average...
On average, by the end of this year, 2020, ironically 2020, the same numbers we used to describe perfect vision.
In 2020, the year of perfect vision, the entire world just lost all their credibility and experts.
That's part of it. It's not all of it.
But losing your belief that the experts are on your side and telling you the truth is really important to get to the next level.
And that part is complete.
You do not believe any experts anymore.
You still have to listen to them because there are lots of situations where listening to the expert is better than guessing.
But you don't have the same trust that you would have had even if you hear all the experts agree.
When you hear all the experts agree, what does that mean in 2020?
Nothing. It doesn't mean anything.
It used to. It used to mean a lot.
If you heard that all the experts agreed, Weren't you pretty sure that was true?
Maybe not every time, but didn't you say to yourself, well, all the experts agree, it's probably 80 or 90% likely to be true.
Not anymore. I mean, I don't know if it was ever true.
I suspect it was never true that the experts were right 80 to 90% of the time.
But you certainly don't believe it anymore.
Now, what do you believe?
Well, that's the part that's still coming together.
And by the end of this year, almost all of you, not all of you, everybody's individual, almost all of you will have reached a new level of awareness that's actually unprecedented.
Now, what that will feel like and what that will look like, still a little bit unknown.
I mean, the whole point of a higher level of awareness is if you could see it from where you were at, it wouldn't exist.
Right? The whole point of it is to move to a higher level of awareness.
And that's the big red pill that's coming.
It's a whole bunch of small things that collectively are going to sum up to a new view of your entire understanding of reality and your place within it.
So that wasn't what you were expecting today, was it?
I saw Steve Bannon say something that just fascinated me.
And this gets back to Sort of like the feeling about the simulation.
The idea that we live in a computer simulation and we're not real in an original sense.
We're real as software, in that view of the things, but not real as the creators who made the software.
Now, here's one of those situations that just makes me think, you know, I don't think it's true.
In the way I'm going to say it, but it just feels like we live in a programmed movie.
Because there are so many things that happen that fit a storyline or a narrative.
It's just getting harder and harder to ignore.
Now, your first assumption should be it's nothing but coincidence and confirmation bias.
And I wouldn't tell you it's more than that.
But when you see it, it's still interesting.
So I'm going to call it out.
So Steve Bannon made this observation.
That George Floyd, we know from the coronary report, had coronavirus, and he also had fentanyl in his system.
Now, there's a separate conversation about how much those matter to the outcome, but what are the odds that George Floyd would have two things from China in his system?
And they're both bad.
Is that a coincidence?
Doesn't that feel like the simulation is winking at you?
It's like the biggest trigger point maybe that we've ever seen in terms of a single event that lasted nine minutes that changed the world.
What are the odds that that single moment that changed everything, at the same time that we're experiencing a pandemic caused by China, at the same time we're having an economic dislocation also caused by China, What were the odds that that person who was the flashpoint for everything had in his body the two most visible variables of China's complete evil?
What a weird coincidence.
Now it's not a meaningful it might not be meaningful in terms of explaining what happened.
It's sort of an unknown.
I would say that having fentanyl in your body on top of Whatever other drugs, on top of police being on your chest and on your neck, on top of any excitation from the situation, on top of, you know, whatever underlying health conditions, you know, there are a lot of variables involved.
But what are the odds that fentanyl would be one of them?
I don't know. I think the simulation is winking at you and telling you that, hey, hey everybody, hey everybody, There's another level.
There's another level.
I can't tell you what it is, because even if I did, it's too soon.
You have to be ready.
The foundation has to be poured before you can enjoy the next level of awareness.
I can't tell you what it is, but...
Wink, wink.
Wink, wink. All right.
So... Somebody says, I have not and I will not wear a mask.
So, is anybody who has been watching my periscopes for a while alarmed about some of my books being upside down on the shelf behind me?
Have any of you noticed that some time ago one of the books was upside down and then later it was right side up, but then the middle book was upside down?
And yesterday I got a message from somebody who said, you're driving me crazy with that upside-down book.
My OCD is getting triggered.
Can you put the Winn-Bigley book right side up?
So I said, yes.
Because if somebody asks me for something like that, of course I'm going to.
But I had to turn the other book upside down.
Because I wanted to see how many of you noticed.
Well, now that I've admitted that I was doing it intentionally...
Now, of course, that is an example of persuasion.
And I did it so that I could call it out later once I was done.
If any of you noticed it, and it made you spend some time wondering about it, that's all it was supposed to do.
It was supposed to make you pause and wonder.
Because the more attention you give me, as long as it's positive attention, even negative attention sometimes...
It's sort of a bonding process.
So the more you think about somebody, the more important they seem, the more likely you're going to check their content out the next time you see it.
Now, yes, so this is a simple technique of using something that's intentionally wrong to draw your attention.
Now, I've talked about in the past, most of you have heard it, I wrote about it in Win Bigly as well, That the president's tweets often have a misspelling.
You know, for example, recently instead of stopped, he typed stooped.
It's got to be stooped.
I don't think that he makes that kind of mistake intentionally.
So unlike my situation where I intentionally turned a book upside down to create a mistake, I don't believe that the mistakes you see in the president's tweets are intentional.
They're just typos. They're just typos.
Maybe he gets a fact wrong.
I mean, it's just normal stuff.
But he doesn't delete them.
And the fact that he doesn't delete them and simply just retweet it with the correct words is telling you something.
It's a decision.
Would Barack Obama leave a typo in a tweet?
Would Barack Obama leave a typo in a tweet?
If he could just delete it, because somebody always points it out right away, right?
In the first five minutes after a presidential tweet, probably 60 seconds into it, into the tweet, somebody's going to tell the president, oops, you got a typo.
Barack Obama would fix it because he'd want to look professional.
He'd want to present himself as a person who cares about the details.
That would be part of his brand.
President Trump would see a typo and say, quite reasonably, This typo is going to make people look at this tweet.
The typo, even though it's an accident, added something.
It's an addition.
It's not a subtraction.
It's an addition. Because what he wants when he sends a tweet is your attention.
Why would he tweet if he doesn't want you to pay attention?
Do you remember that fascinating tweet that Barack Obama sent?
No, you don't.
Because Barack Obama never sent a tweet that you would remember.
In fact, you probably didn't remember it for five minutes whenever you saw it.
How many tweets of President Trump's do you remember?
At least, you know, conceptually, not the exact words.
Probably a lot. Covfefe, for example, just to pick one.
Probably a lot. So the president is operating at a higher level of awareness.
This is what I told you in 2015, is what I noticed immediately about him.
He's operating on a persuasion level, which means that when he tells a fact that the fact checkers say, no, that fact is not right, does he know it's not a fact?
He knows it doesn't matter.
He knows it doesn't matter.
That's what you need to understand.
He knows it doesn't matter.
As long as the facts he's alleging are directionally useful, meaning he's persuading you quite obviously and transparently toward a policy or a situation which he can describe all of its benefits, there's nothing really hidden about that.
And so if he uses a Fact that doesn't pass the fact-checking, and he gets called out on it.
All the smart people operating at a lower level of awareness say, what's wrong with you?
Are you crazy? Are you stupid?
Why are you not correcting these obvious mistakes?
And the reason is, Trump operates at a higher level of awareness.
If you hate him, it's hard to hear.
I know. It's really hard to hear if you hate him.
But a whole big part of why people don't understand why he does what he does, and it scares them to death, because when you see somebody powerful, and what's more powerful than the presidency, when you see somebody powerful, and you don't know why they're doing what they're doing, how is that not scary, really?
How could you not be scared by watching the most powerful person in your world, if you're in America, doing things that don't make sense to you?
Scary, right?
So you can completely understand why half of the country, their hair is on fire.
They just don't know why he does what he does.
And the reason is this.
He knows what matters, and he knows what's bullshit.
If you said to me, is Trump the very best medical professional in the world?
I'd say probably not.
It's not something he's studied.
If you said, is Trump an expert on any one of a number of detailed technical topics?
I would say no, nor does he claim to be experts on those detailed technical topics.
But there is one thing that Trump is an expert on.
And I don't even think his critics would disagree.
He knows bullshit.
He lives it.
He breathes it. He produces it.
He manages it.
He spots it. He changes it.
He creates it.
He knows bullshit.
And he can smell it a mile away.
That's that hunch thing.
When the president closed the airports, when all of the experts said, no, no, no, too soon, too soon, we don't have data, what was he operating on?
A hunch. What's another way to describe that same situation?
He smelled bullshit.
He smelled the bullshit on the entire world.
He could smell bullshit from fucking Wuhan, China.
That's how good he smelled bullshit.
So, consider that when you see that the president's executive order prominently asks for a national database on police misconduct.
What that's saying is, he knows the data that people are using to make decisions, they're using the wrong data, and that they are trapped in a delusion.
He's trapped in a delusion.
Somebody's saying, who is this guy?
Well, welcome. Whoever asked who I am, you should read Win Bigley as your introduction to the answer to that question.
So say what you will about the president.
I saw Mike Cernovich say the other day that That he thinks that Trump has lost a step with age, but he's not in complete breakdown like Biden is, of course.
There's a big difference, and I would agree with that.
I think, if you're being fair, has Trump lost a step with age?
I'd say yes. I would say yes.
I would say I've lost a step with age as well.
Now, one of the things that people don't realize until they I don't worry automatically about somebody in the early to mid-70s who looks like they've lost a little bit of a step.
Because that doesn't tell you the whole story, because they've got other things going on.
They've got trusted advisors.
They've got a lifetime of calling out bullshit.
They have some strong capabilities that can compensate for any loss of a step.
But it's fair to call it out.
It is fair to call it out.
When I was saying that Hillary Clinton looked unhealthy, Before she collapsed and was carried away and dragged into a car.
I've been saying that for months because it just looked that way to me.
When I say that Joe Biden appears to have lost his mental abilities, far beyond the point where he should have any job, really, except maybe 7-Eleven, I'm saying that because that's just an observation.
And I'm trying to be objective.
That is not based on politics.
It's just what I see.
Likewise, I think I would be a liar or a hypocrite if I were not to call out, as Mike Cernovich did, that it looks to me like Trump has lost his step.
But, again, you have to look at the big picture.
I think he's also gained a lot in terms of the capability of how to be a president by being a president.
I would say that his top advisors on the most important things are extraordinary.
The most important things being how we deal with other countries and our economy.
In my opinion, those are the top priorities.
His advisors in those categories?
Mike Pompeo?
Excellent. Steve Mnuchin?
Excellent. Peter Navarro?
Excellent. Three top advisors?
Those are A-plus advisors.
At least as far as I can tell, right?
You never really know because you can't tell from the outside.
But from what we can see, those are three of the top, best, most qualified, and so far have functioned really at the highest level so far, very impressively, I would say.
So do you care that Trump is 74 and he was a little bit sharper at 55?
Yeah, you should care about that, but you have to see it in context, too.
And I will reiterate, we should not have presidents who are over 70.
It's just a bad idea.
It's just adding a risk to something that you didn't need to add a risk to.
But here we are. We have two choices of candidates over 70, so we'll have to pick the one you like.
Oh yeah, let's talk about Kamala Harris.
It feels like every day somebody smart is writing an opinion piece saying, well, it's got to be Kamala Harris.
It's kind of come down to, it kind of has to be Kamala Harris.
Now, I don't know how we can ignore the fact that it's just blatant racism, because if a job requirement, the vice presidency in this case, if the job requirement has a guaranteed I don't know if you can call that anything but racism.
Now, I understand why Biden is doing it, and I'll even go further.
If I were Biden, I'd do it too.
I would do it. Wouldn't you?
If you were Biden, and you were trying to get elected, and as long as he's being transparent about it, I mean, it's racism, but it's I have to give him some credit for being transparent.
Biden is telling the country, look, I'm going to be racist in this decision.
There's no other word for it.
If you're requiring a race for a job, you're a racist.
There's no other way to shade that, right?
And I would be insulted if anybody disagreed with that.
It is explicit racism by the cleanest, most obvious definition.
There's nothing more racist than your race will determine whether you're eligible for a job.
In the government?
Now, I know there's not a legal requirement, but Biden said it explicitly.
And let me say, if I or you were in his situation, it's actually a good play.
It was not dumb.
It's the smartest, most reasonable thing it can do, and it has a good intention.
The good intention is to make the country feel comfortable that it's represented.
And I don't think there's anything wrong with the intention.
Nothing wrong with the intention.
So we kind of let it slide and say, well, the intention is obviously good.
You know, even if you're Republican, Even if you're a Republican, and even if you say, that's totally racist, requiring a race for a job, what else is it?
It's just racist. But even the Republicans, I think if you talk to them privately, would say, but yeah, it's well-intentioned.
You might not think it's a good idea, you might not like who he picks, but you'd have to admit, can we just admit that it's well-intentioned?
It's a good strategy to get elected as well.
Well, I don't see any bad intention to it, whatsoever.
So, we do expect the Kamal will be picked.
Now let me ask you this.
As your tapestry of the big red pill starts to come together, and you're seeing the patches of the tapestry individually, here's another patch.
Just throw this into your thinking.
When you're starting to see a larger truth revealed over the coming months, think about when I told you that Kamala Harris would be the VP pick to be the real president because of Biden's brain.
Think about how long ago I told you that.
Think about me telling you that Trump would be president in 2015, publicly and loudly.
Think about how loudly and publicly and repeatedly I told you that the least likely person in the world, according to everybody else, was going to be your next president.
I told you that Kamala Harris would be effectively the candidate after she dropped out of the fucking race.
Think about that.
Now, it still could change.
It could be Susan Rice in the end.
It could be things we don't know are happening behind the scenes.
It could be something they found out about Kamala Harris that we don't know that takes her out of the running.
But at the moment, wouldn't you agree that at the moment, if he were to pick today, it looks like it would be Kamala Harris?
And at the moment, you would all agree that Kamala Harris would be, if not on day one, Very soon, the most influential person and effectively the president behind the president.
Would you agree?
I bet you didn't agree when I first said it, did you?
So, I just want you to put that fact that I called this so far in advance that it approaches magic.
And I did it twice.
Because calling Trump for president...
I'm not saying other people didn't also...
I didn't think he would be president.
I wasn't the one person in the world.
But I want you to keep those two facts in your head.
That how far in advance I saw those things developing.
What I see developing right now is even cooler.
That's the big red pill.
It's the big change in your awareness that's happening.
So if you believed In the old world, the old reality that you still live in, but it's old, and it's like an old pair of shoes.
It's still comfortable, but eventually you're going to get new shoes, and that's coming soon.
And you were thinking to yourself, well, I think I live in a rational world where, you know, rational things happened.
What rational world allowed you to predict Kamala Harris would be the person?
Was that rational or was that understanding how persuasion works?
Well, I would argue that I used a persuasion filter to predict it.
If you use some other filter and it didn't predict it, I take you back to my most fundamental statement about how you should deal with your reality.
If you have a filter on life, in other words, the worldview or the way you're seeing things continues to make you happy, And it continues to predict, at least happier than you would be otherwise, and continues to predict accurately, well, that's a pretty good worldview.
It might be false.
It might not actually be an accurate picture of reality.
But if it makes you happy, and it accurately predicts what's going to happen next in the environment, that might be as good as you can do, right?
Because we all have different filters, different movies.
If yours is working, I'm not going to talk you out of it.
In fact, I might try yours, if it's working.
Now, I say that about religion.
I'm not a believer, personally, but as I observe people with that filter on reality, no matter which religion it is, you notice that the majority of people seem to be quite happy about it.
And it gives them a structure and a worldview that is, in my opinion, far more good than bad.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, they're religious extremists, but that feels like more of an excuse for whatever they wanted to do anyway.
So, somebody says identity politics predicted it.
Identity politics predicted that they would have started with that.
Identity politics predicted that Biden would not have gotten this far.
So there had to be something else that predicted it would be Kamala Harris.
So it's a little more complicated than that.
But yes, identity politics certainly would have signaled that somebody like Kamala Harris Would be in the final mix.
So I think identity politics would have accurately predicted what the primaries look like, right?
Because you had pretty good representation, women and minorities in the primaries.
It would not have predicted Joe Biden.
So there's something else going on here.
There's something else in this part.
I claim some vision on.
All right. Alright, somebody says she was always the choice.
I think that's true.
Somebody says Kamala is not popular with the black population, so it's a bad prediction.
Let me ask you this. Given the current protests, the current situation, and the enemy of the people consistently telling you that Trump is a racist, it doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter if Kamala Harris is popular with black people.
It doesn't matter at all.
They're going to vote the same way anyway.
Because they're voting against Trump.
Kamala Harris Assembly has to exist and not be Trump.
That's good enough.
Nobody's going to care about that.
Did you predict Van Jones' comments on Trump's crime initiative?
I haven't seen his comments on Trump's crime initiative.
So since I haven't seen it, I can predict it Even though it's already happened, right?
I'm going to say that Van Jones says that he didn't go far enough.
Let me look it up.
Tell me in the comments if that's right.
My guess is that Van Jones said, step in the right direction, didn't go far enough.
Let's see. Van Jones?
What was it? The crime initiative, did you say?
Or was it the police thing?
I think it was more about the police.
I may be on the wrong topic here.
So this is the first headline.
Step in the right direction.
How did I do? What did I predict?
Now, of course, you don't know that I didn't see this before.
So if you're skeptical, I'll tell you again.
Something that you can always depend on with me.
Now, you might not trust it, but I'm going to say it anyway.
If I tell you directly, I am not lying about this, I'm not lying about that.
I've never in my life said something that directly that was just a lie.
I don't even think I could.
Now, you know, if there's some time you see me, you think I've left out part of the story or something, that might be true.
I wouldn't do it intentionally, but I could leave out something unintentionally.
But I'm not going to look right at you and just lie to you.
And I'm telling you, I did not see any news whatsoever about Van Jones.
In fact, I didn't even check the news page.
Actually, I did open a page, but didn't read it.
He missed an opportunity.
It was too political.
It started off with a lot of unity and then moved into politics and created stuff that people are going to fight about.
It's a powerful step.
Van Jones says the speech, I don't give it a high rating, but the executive order is a step in the right direction.
So, how'd I do?
Not bad. Can you interview Ann Coulter?
I don't know if that's the right combination.
I mean, I think Ann Coulter is one of the most talented writers in America.
Maybe the most.
I mean, she's in the top five.
Matt Taibbi, I'd put in that category.
But she's just one of the finest writers I've ever seen.
I don't agree with all of her opinions, but that's what makes it fun.
I just don't think we're right...
I don't know. It would be fun, and I would certainly enjoy it, but I don't know if the audience needs us to talk.
That doesn't feel like...
I'd rather talk to Charlemagne the God.
How much would you like to see me in an interview, doesn't matter which way it goes, him interviewing me, but in a conversation.
How much would you like to see me in a conversation with Charlemagne the God?
To rip a hole in the fabric of reality.
I don't think that'll happen, but I think you'd enjoy it.
Alright, that would be a better combination.
Export Selection