Episode 1036 Scott Adams: White-Looking Jesus, Fake News Being More Shameless Than Usual, Presidential Tweets
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
PolitiFact's credibility and the "Fine People" HOAX
Shaun King tweets about "white European Jesus"
NYT despicable doxxing of blogger, Scott Alexander
CNN's characterization of Russian collusion HOAX
Bubba Wallace NASCAR story...HOAX?
Project Veritas exposes Facebook's political bias
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 that will happen directly after the simultaneous sip.
I know you'll enjoy it.
It's going to be a good one.
Now, you might wonder why I don't do the normal introduction to the simultaneous sip today, and there's a reason.
I can't remember it.
That's right. I read it every single time.
One of the tricks of writing is that things that you can read are very different than things you read out loud.
So if you're going to write something for the purpose of reading it out loud, if you're going to be reading it, that's fine.
But something you were going to memorize and say, you might write it differently.
But... We're going to enjoy the simultaneous sip right now.
Do you have a cup? A mug?
It's the dopamine hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
And you're getting ready for it.
Now go Good stuff So last night I was getting ready to go go to sleep and I was winding down.
I was in bed and I thought to myself, I'll check Twitter one more time.
Here's what you should never do if you're trying to wind down and go to sleep.
Don't ever check Twitter right before you go to sleep.
It's a very bad sleep strategy.
And so I open up Twitter and I see somebody's making a comment.
That's referring to the president retweeting me, which he did the day before yesterday.
And I thought, oh, they're still talking about this.
This was the day before yesterday.
But then I looked at the comment, and I thought, well, this doesn't seem like it's about that one.
So I click on it, and he had retweeted me again.
So it was the second retweet in two days.
And I'm thinking, well, aren't I pretty special?
And then I saw another one.
And I thought, are you kidding me?
He retweeted me three times in two days.
But it wasn't true.
It was not true that I got retweeted three times in two days by the president.
Because it was four.
He tweeted me four times in the last 48 hours.
We'll talk about those.
And I've got to tell you, it's the weirdest experience to get retweeted by the president.
Because it's simultaneously big and small at the same time.
So the big part is that he's the most important politician on the planet.
And even if it were not just the job of the president, he's also the biggest personality and the biggest job.
I mean, it's Trump, right?
And so when he tweets about you and he referred to me as interesting guy, I'm not sure if that's my forever name yet.
It doesn't have the Crisp, insulting quality of his other nicknames.
So I don't know if I can call myself an interesting guy.
It just needs to be a little more insulting.
So maybe I can ask him for that later.
Can you give me a nickname that's just a little bit derogatory?
Because I don't think I can go with this one.
It's not going to work. Anyway, so that's the big part, is that it's the most important personality in the world who is apparently I caught his attention four times in 48 hours.
So that's the big part.
The small part is that when I'm experiencing it, it's just me and my phone.
It's just me and my phone.
That's it.
So it's the weird combination of things.
And then I woke up and saw a lot of comments that other people saw.
So we'll talk about those things in a minute.
I tweeted yesterday that if I ever become president, seems unlikely, but if I ever become president, I want to do such a good job that the news is about stuff like drinking water with two hands, walking down a ramp, tweeting about stuff.
Have you noticed that the criticisms about Trump are completely off topic of his job performance?
Have you noticed that? It happens kind of subtly because we get so drawn into each story, it's hard to look at the larger trend.
You get lost in the details.
But if you just rise up for a minute and look at the headlines.
Let me call up CNN randomly.
You see the types of stories that are anti-Trump.
There's something about Breonna Keillor confronts Trump campaign official saying, Are dead Americans funny to you?
Alright, so the best they could do is that there's a campaign official who laughed about a joke.
Okay. Here's another one.
Trump takes first trip to the border.
So that's a nothing.
First trip to the border in 2020.
Okay. How about...
Fact-checking Trump's mail-in vote fraud claims.
Alright, let's check that.
So John Avalon is checking Trump's mail-in fraud claims.
And as his source, he uses PolitiFact.
So he refers to PolitiFact, and they have this little logo, you've probably seen it, that shows the meter going from false to true.
And if it's really false, it's like it's on fire.
It's a lie. So PolitiFact is their source for CNN to fact-check the president.
So I thought to myself, well, I wonder how credible they are.
So I thought, I'll check the one thing that I know what the truth is.
And it's the fine people hoax.
And everybody who reads the transcript knows the truth, so this one's easy.
You don't have to wonder what the truth is, because it's just written right in front of you.
There's no interpretation. It's pretty obvious.
So, you should go to PolitiFact, presumably, if it's a credible outfit, and it will have its little meter, which it does for all of its facts, and that fact will say the fine people hoax, or the fine people story, the allegation that the president called the marching Nazis, fine people, it should have a big flaming false, right?
If PolitiFact is credible, that's what it would be.
So I look it up, And I'm looking for the logo.
And it's not there.
It's not there. The logo, the little flaming truth-o-meter, is the primary branding thing that they do.
They put it on every story.
So every story has that, except for the fine people hoax.
Instead of telling you it was true or false, they said, we're just going to show it to you in context.
Here's the transcript.
Why would a fact-checking organization not check the fact on the most important fact of the entire presidency?
In my opinion, it's the most important fact.
Because more than anything, it's what's behind the imagination that the president is an obvious racist and everybody knows it, and here's the evidence because of this fine people hoax.
Think about it. PolitiFact left their fact-checking off the biggest lie in politics.
Didn't say it was true. Didn't say it was false.
They just left it off.
Think about that.
And that's the source the CNN uses to fact-check them.
The CNN claim is that mail-in ballots would not be a massive fraud opportunity.
They might be debating some of the details of that, and I would imagine the President is speaking quite approximately, as he often does.
So he may not be true on every fact, but is there any thinking person who believes that mail-in ballots are not An opportunity for fraud?
I can't even wrap my head around the opposing argument.
I really can't.
So, that's weird.
Here's what else they say.
Trump falsely accuses Obama of treason.
So again, here's one of the biggest, the worst criticism they could find of Trump's job performance.
It has nothing to do with his job.
It's just something he said about Obama in a political season.
And he exaggerated perhaps, used treason when really he meant bad behavior, you know, not technically treason.
Is that a story? Again, if I run for president and become president, the best you could do is to have your biggest critics have nothing to say about your actual performance on the job, and only talk about your personality, Talk about some unimportant things that you said that might have been wrong.
That's the worst they have on Trump.
Are they talking about the economy?
Do you know what November 3rd is going to look like?
Here's what November 3rd is going to look like.
The economy is going to be roaring back at record percentages.
Which will be misleading because we're coming off a low base.
So just as Obama's performance with the economy was misleading, because he too was coming off a depressed base, everything looks good from there, Trump is going to get that same imaginary benefit.
He's going to be able to say, hey, look, we had a coronavirus and things are up X percentage.
Somebody says the Dow.
Is the Dow screaming up?
I'll bet it is. So the president's going to have an economy that's coming back.
I don't think people will blame him for the economy being depressed, but they might credit him for it coming back.
I think that would be fair because he has been pushing for it to come back even at maybe greater risk for health problems.
And so the economy will look good.
What else we got? Let's take China.
How is the president going to look Well, I think China's reputation is so bad that because Trump has been tough on China in general, he's going to look smart because he was tough on China and it looks like his instincts about China have been completely proven true.
What about ISIS? ISIS is gone.
ISIS is completely gone.
Do you remember ISIS? Wasn't there a time you were worried that ISIS was going to conquer the world?
It's gone, basically.
I mean, at least territorially.
It'll never be gone as an idea, I suppose.
So you can kind of go down the line if you take whatever you think are the top five things.
Take the top five issues.
He looks pretty good.
There was a Rasmussen poll.
That said that something like 24% of black likely voters, so it's not the entire population, it's just the likely voters who are also black Americans, strongly approve of their president's job approval.
Do you believe that?
So this is Rasmussen. Now Rasmussen, I think, was the most accurate poll of the major polls.
The most accurate in 2016.
And they're saying that about a quarter of black likely voters approve or strongly approve of the president's performance.
Do you think that's true?
I think it is, actually.
Just anecdotally, and of course, you know, anecdotally doesn't mean much, but it is my impression that he may have doubled his support in the black community.
And why wouldn't he?
Why wouldn't he? Because I think the black community is looking at the same stuff everybody else is looking at.
Do you think the black community likes crime?
No. Do you think the black community likes a bad economy?
No. Do you think the black community likes bad trade deals?
No. So, yeah, why wouldn't he have doubled support, even against all the bad press?
Seems like he would have. Alright, some other things.
So one of the things that the president retweeted was my tweet in which I was tweeting about Sean King.
Now, you all know Sean King.
He's an activist, one of the most famous ones, and he's a black Would you say he's a black activist?
Or he's an activist for black issues?
Now the reason I ask that is that the...
And I can't tell the story without this.
Alright? So when I start giving you this context, the first thing you should say is, how is that relevant to the story?
You're seeing it in the comments.
So he is an activist for the black community who has the interesting distinction of not appearing to be black.
Now, I have no opinion of what his DNA is, right?
So I'm not going to go there.
I'm just saying that the public opinion, other people, not me, look at him and say, Dude, you don't even look black.
I don't think you're black.
Now, I don't know what he is.
I'm not going to give you an opinion on that.
I just think it's sort of obnoxious to tell other people what they are.
So I'm not going to get into that argument.
I will simply... I'll simply note that the most famous thing about Sean King is that he's not black enough according to his critics.
And when I say not black enough, I mean he looks like a white guy.
Again, nothing wrong with that.
I'm not saying he's white.
I don't know anything about his DNA. I don't even have an opinion.
I don't even care. I literally couldn't care about any of that.
But it's important to this anecdotal story here.
So he was asked about whether the depictions of Jesus, who looks sort of white and European in most depictions, if he thought that that needed to be changed to be more historically accurate and, let's say, incorporating the assumption that Jesus was less European looking and probably more Middle Eastern looking.
And this is what Sean King tweeted.
He said, I think the statues of the white European they claim is Jesus should also come down, meaning like the statues and stuff.
They're a form of white supremacy, always have been.
In the Bible, when the family of Jesus wanted to hide and blend in, guess where they went?
Egypt, not Denmark.
Tear them down. So that was Sean King's tweet.
Now, here is the fascinating psychological part of this.
The fascinating part is that when you see this tweet, isn't your first impression that the slippery slope started with one statue and then it was lots of statues and then it's Teddy Roosevelt and the next thing you know, it's going to be Jesus. Isn't that your first impression?
That you started with something that wasn't that big a deal, it was just a statue, one statue in a world full of statues, but then it was lots of statues and now it's, my God, they're coming from my religion.
That's what it feels like, right?
But let me suggest that if this had been the first and only issue, if you'd never heard about any statues, there were no protests going on, if the only thing you heard of was just this point, hey, Why is Jesus always depicted looking European?
Wouldn't you think that was actually pretty reasonable as a complaint?
Seriously. If it was the only one, you weren't judging it as a continuation of something maybe you've got a problem with.
If it was just by itself in isolation, it's actually the most reasonable complaint, which is what I said.
So when I retweeted Sean King, I thought to myself, you know, in these times of great division and stuff like this, I don't disagree with that even a little bit.
In fact, I've thought that all my life.
When I went to Sunday school as a kid, I'm 10 years old, and I'm looking at White Jesus, and I'm looking at the Middle East, and I'm 10, and I'm thinking, how's this work?
How'd you get this European guy born in...
Born in the Middle East.
And then, Sean King's characterization of it says it's a form of white supremacy.
Now, if you've been watching me for a while, you know that I've been criticizing anybody who uses the word white supremacy because it's just hyperbole and it's really not in a lot of the examples that people are using.
In terms of how white people are thinking about it anyway, it has nothing to do with any of that.
So I think most of that is just overblown.
But in this particular example, I've got to say he's got kind of a point here.
Because religion is, you know, what's more important than religion.
And Christianity being one of the big two, I guess, religions.
It's super, super important in the world and in people's lives.
And sure enough...
The racial identity of historical Jesus was changed to make it white-like.
How is that good?
And somebody in the comments is saying he was a Jew and they could look any number of ways.
Well, I think that that's a fair statement that there are people who look all different ways.
But I don't think anybody would disagree...
That the artistic renderings of Jesus were intended to look like a European.
I'm not saying it's impossible that somebody could look a certain way and it's different from the other people.
But I think you would agree that they intended to make him European.
Don't you feel that that's a safe statement?
I mean, I'm not a historian, but it feels like that's safe.
So, I think Sean King was just right.
I will be happy to Criticize him in places where I think he's wrong, but why can't we just agree with him when he's right?
And I think what's fascinating about this is if you've taken the context away, you would say, yeah, you know, that's a pretty good point.
Maybe you should do something about that.
Now, I'm not a believer, so it's not up to me.
I'm not in this fight at all.
Whichever way it goes is fine.
I think I think everybody should see Jesus the way they want to, right?
Why can't Jesus be exactly the Jesus you want to see?
Why can't black people have black Jesus?
Why can't the Chinese have Chinese Jesus?
Because he is Jesus, right?
You're not exactly fitting into a little box.
There's only one of them. Whatever the believers want to do with Jesus, that would be their business.
Here is a horrible little story.
So what's interesting about that is that the president retweeted my comment, which was also agreeing.
Part of the comment was I said Trump just won 2020.
Because if the protesters come after Jesus, that's the end of the election, isn't it?
Now, the Sean King thing probably will just stop with one tweet, but imagine, if you will, that it becomes a thing.
Even if I agree with it being a reasonable thing that should be discussed, it is the end of the election.
Is there anybody who would disagree with that?
That if this Jesus thing became more of an issue than it is more than just a tweet, it would be the end of the election.
So President Trump retweets it.
Do you see how clever that is?
Do you see how clever it is for the president to retweet that?
Because in its form as it was, you know, just as a tweet, it's just a blue check person who tweeted something that has been said before, not much to it.
But because the president tweeted not only my comment that it would, that would basically be the election, but he also tweeted the part where I agreed with Sean King.
Think about it. He didn't make a comment about it.
He just tweeted it.
So the fact that he would want to boost that signal because it's good for his campaign is pretty clever.
I've got to say that was a well-chosen retweet.
Because if that gets bigger, the election's over.
I'll get back to some more Trump retweets in a minute.
There was an appalling story about something the New York Times did that is one of the most despicable things you'll ever see in any entity, especially a news business.
So the New York Times decided to do a story about a fairly famous blogger who conceals his real identity.
And he blogged under the name of Scott Alexander, But that was actually his first and middle name.
So his real last name he keeps secret because he's a psychiatrist and he doesn't want his blogging, which can be a little more controversial, to bleed into his real work.
He could get fired.
His clients would have a problem with it.
So the New York Times says they contact him to do a story about his blogging.
Now, I've talked about Scott Alexander's blog before.
It's one of the most brilliant stories And insightful things you've ever seen.
Like ever. That's a pretty big statement, right?
But it is one of the most insightful, smart, fresh views you've never seen before.
I've quoted him before.
One of the most interesting thinkers in the world, really, and very well informed.
And the New York Times, of course, wants to do a story about it because he's so influential and so good at it.
But they decided they were going to dox him.
They were going to do a complimentary story about him because I guess the angle was he got a lot of stuff right about coronavirus before the experts did.
So it was going to be a complimentary story about how he got things right before the experts were.
And he's an influential, great blogger.
And their policy is that they reveal real names.
And of course, he asked them not to.
And they said, no, it's our policy.
We have to reveal real names.
Now, they were going to write a positive story and destroy his life intentionally, knowing they were doing it, because it's just their policy.
It's just their policy to use a real name.
Yeah, we can't make an exception because it's just our policy.
And I don't know if they did, or they're going to.
I don't know the status of this.
I can't tell if...
But what it caused him to do was to delete his entire blog.
Not just a blog post, but the entire history of his blog.
One of the most valuable contributions to civilization.
And he deleted it.
He kept it back up, so it's not going forever.
But he deleted it and wrote about it.
Now, I could not hate the New York Times more than I do right now.
It's just evil. There isn't really any other way to spin this.
If you're telling me that the New York Times has a rule, and they just can't break that rule, well, okay, but it's an evil rule.
Do you know who else had a rule?
Hiller. He had a rule too.
They weren't very good rules.
We wish he didn't have them.
So New York Times, why don't you take your rules and shove them so far up your fucking evil asses that we can see it in your eyes.
You shouldn't even be able to stay in business after something like this.
Because it's one thing to do something accidentally.
I'm very forgiving about accidents.
It's one thing to have a different opinion.
I accept different opinions.
It's one thing to be political.
It's one thing to be hyperbolic.
It's one thing to fail the fact-checking.
There are lots of ways to have bad behavior.
But doxing a guy that you actually like in your writing story because of how much he's added to the world, and you know you're going to destroy his life by revealing him, that is so fucking evil.
That I can't even wrap my head around it.
Amazing. And by the way, this guy isn't political.
There's nothing political here.
He's literally just a helpful voice in the world.
That's it. And they're destroying his whole fucking life.
Oh, it's worse than that. Because his patients will suffer.
He's a psychiatrist with a big group of patients.
Do you think that they will be unaffected by this?
No. No, they will be affected.
Fucking evil. All right.
The other thing that the president tweeted was, just an article I retweeted, which was that supposedly the only pollster to show Trump winning the state of Michigan, so in other words, he has that distinction for accuracy in 2016, It basically has a projection that's completely different than the major polls.
So you know the major polls are showing Biden winning by very large margins.
And the guy who was the most accurate pollster on a state basis, at least for some of the key states, says that his polling, using a little different methodology, which has been more accurate in the past, shows its neck and neck.
It's neck and neck.
And... He suggests that there might be more shy Trump supporters than 2016.
That's right. It's neck and neck and there might be twice as many shy supporters who are not admitting who they're going to vote for than 2016.
So the president retweeted that because that obviously is good for him.
So let's see.
Trump put a temporary hold on workers' visas from foreign countries.
You know, this is a topic I don't know a lot about.
But I also don't understand why the tech workers are being treated differently than other kinds of workers.
I could see wanting to keep employment good in this country if there were types of jobs that Americans could do and wanted to do.
But in the tech world, Bringing people in from other countries, let's say India.
If you bring in an engineer from India, does that subtract from America or add to America?
Well, have you ever met any technical people from India?
They're really good!
I'm not saying that as a general statement that every person from India is a technical engineer.
I'm saying that I've met a lot of technical experts who were born in India.
And they're really good.
They've started companies, some of the biggest companies in the country.
Or at least people who were born in India started the biggest countries, not necessarily just worker visa people.
But my understanding of economics is that the more people who have that kind of skill, the better.
The more the better. Because there's an unlimited demand.
There's no limit to the number of people who have money and would like to do a startup of some kind and the main thing that's preventing them from doing that startup is that they can't find a technical person to do the technical stuff.
It's the number one problem.
You probably think the number one problem for startups is getting money, right?
It's actually not, in my opinion.
Somebody might disagree with this.
The number one problem is finding technical talent.
If you get that right, you can usually get money too.
So, I don't understand this, but I also haven't heard the full argument.
And it's a temporary restriction.
We'll see if that becomes permanent through the end of the year.
I want to read you how CNN is currently characterizing the Russia collusion So CNN,
of course, you would say to yourself, well, they were certainly hugely embarrassed by covering it as if it were true for, I don't know, two years or whatever, only to find out the entire thing was wrong.
It was just a hoax and made up and the president didn't do anything wrong and it was bad actors in the government, etc.
Exactly the opposite of what CNN reported for two years.
So do they say, gosh, we should have got that wrong?
No. This is the way they're deciding.
This is an opinion piece.
It doesn't matter who. It's on CNN.com.
And here's their characterization of that.
I've just got to read you the sentence because it's hilarious.
While, quote, while some misconduct related to the Russia investigations has been uncovered, that's just the first part of the sentence.
Some misconduct?
Yeah, there has been some misconduct.
A little bit. Hardly worth mentioning.
You don't need any details, but there was some misconduct related to the Russia investigation.
It's been uncovered, yeah.
And several former FBI officials have been chided about For their handling of certain aspects of the probe.
Chided. They've been chided.
Now, CNN does not say that the FBI did very, very bad things as part of what seemed to be a larger plot to remove the president who was legally elected.
No. They say that several former FBI officials have been chided.
Oh, they've been chided.
I don't even know where you come up with the word chided.
Could you come up with a softer word to criticize somebody?
Let me see if I can use this word.
Joseph Goebbels, who was the Nazi propagandist, a number of people have chided him for some of the things he did.
Joseph Goebbels, he was chided.
Got chided a little bit.
How about Ho Chi Minh?
Killed millions of people.
That's one way to say it.
I mean, if you were being unkind, you'd say, oh yeah, he murdered millions of people.
But if you were CNN, you might say, Ho Chi Minh has been chided for some of the things he did in office while he was in power.
All right. Let's talk about the Bubba Wallace noose story.
So the news, if you could call it that, is that a rare NASCAR driver who is African American, apparently there are not many of them, but Bubba Wallace claims that there was a noose hanging in the garage, the part of the garage where his car was, I guess.
And that was considered a racist act, and the NASCAR people got behind him and really supported him, which was good.
Now I said to myself on day one, how many of you remember, can you back me up on this?
Because a big part of what I do is I make predictions based on persuasion, and then I check them, right?
Have I told you that you have to check your predictions because otherwise you have no idea.
You have no idea how well you understand the world.
You don't know how your filter on the world works unless you make predictions and then check how you did.
What was the first thing I said when I heard about the Bubba Wallace news story?
In the comments, what was the first thing I said?
Where's the picture? Right?
I told you that if there's no picture, it's a hoax.
We live in a world where we're bristling with camera equipment.
Every single person, every one of you, has a camera within arm's reach, probably, your phone, right?
Are you telling me that people saw a frickin' hoax?
I'm sorry, they saw a noose hanging in the garage of a black NASCAR driver and nobody took out a phone?
Really? Nobody took out a phone?
So, let me ask you this.
Who else told you, at the beginning of the story, that if you haven't seen the photo already, it's probably fake?
Now, I have to say probably, because if this turns out to be a real story, let me be the first to say, it's appalling.
You know, it's a 10 out of 10.
It's like a cross burning on your lawn.
We all condemn it.
There's no hesitation, no equivocation.
Horrible, horrible act, if it's true.
But without a photo?
So two out of three race stories like this turn out to be false, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Actually, two out of three. It was researched.
So the odds are that any of these stories...
Have a 67% chance of being false.
If you don't know for sure, and you can't check it out yourself, that's the filter you should put on it.
Well, it'd be terrible if it's true, but there's a 1 in 3 chance it's true.
Some of you are saying in the comments already, some people looked into it, and it turns out that there are photos and even live video, which is much harder to fake.
It's possible, but you could do it, but it's harder.
There's video of that same garage with that With a pull rope for the garage door, a rope hangs down and you grab it and you pull it to raise and lower the garage.
I have exactly that in a utility garage where I have a rope that I pull.
Do you know what makes it easier to pull that rope?
Just take a guess.
What would make it a little easier to grab the rope?
Yeah, you put a little loop on the end.
And there are actual videos from November, November, of that same garage, garage number four, with the pull rope from the thing hanging down, and there, in miniature, about the size of a hand,
not the size of a neck, not the size of something that could go over a head, but more like the size of something you put your hand through that was noose-like, Now, if I hadn't seen it on video, because somebody was just filming back in November, and they were just filming the cars, and they go right by, and you see the thing hanging down, and it's obviously just a pull rope for the garage.
Now, somebody cut it off, allegedly, so that there are no photos that you could take now, because it was cut off.
But back in November, you could see it, and it was clearly just a pull rope.
So that's one of the biggest stories in the country, and it's just so obviously debunked once you see the video.
But how many people will see the video?
What percentage of the country do you think will ever know that that's fake?
It's funny, that story seems to have disappeared from the front page.
Just checking, checking.
Alright, well, let me do a search on CNN and see if they've got any kind of story.
So, all this new story.
See if there are any updates.
Nope. That story seems to have disappeared.
I just did a search on CNN's page and the story isn't even there.
It doesn't exist as any kind of a story in a search.
Unless they come up in the wrong order.
Let's see. Oh, it is there.
But it came up in the wrong order.
All right. I'll just quickly look at it and see if it mentions even the possibility that there are videos of this in the past.
Blah, blah, blah. People looking into it.
Strengthens our resolve.
It's a horrible thing.
He set the race.
Blah, blah, blah. It's a despicable act.
This will not break me.
And by the way, somebody pointed out That the garages in question have these multi-million dollar cars and tools in them.
Of course they have video.
You know they have video.
Because it's like super expensive equipment in all these garages.
So there's video of all this.
So we're going to know for sure. Phelps would not say what if any video cameras may have been recorded at the track.
So the official won't say if there was video recording.
Why would you not say that?
Is it for security purposes?
No. It's because somebody looked at the video and they know that there's nothing there.
People are enraged.
Yeah, okay. The sick person who perpetrated it must be found and exposed.
Yeah, so CNN does not make any reference to the fact that there exists video on YouTube Which shows it in November as a hand pull.
Do you think that they ought to at least mention that other outlets are treating it differently?
So this is the world you live in where the world is presented to you as completely fake.
Alright. So give credit to The Last Refuge that I think did the most thorough job of showing photographs before and after and debunking it.
But there are other sources for that, but The Last Refuge seems to have been all over it.
Alright. That's about all I wanted to talk about today.
Some of you saw my ring.
I'll just say again just for the purposes of Completeness.
I was supposed to get married with Christina in May, but coronavirus delayed that, and we rescheduled and rescheduled, and we were trying to figure out honeymoon and wedding date, and finally we decided that we would just call ourselves married.
We will actually get married within, I don't know, next 30 days probably.
But we decided that the government doesn't get to decide if we're married.
You know what I mean? It's one thing to say, okay, there's a process.
Everybody has the same process.
You have to go through these things, and then you're married.
And I don't mind that, if it's easy, if it's traditional, if the bride wants it, if the family wants it.
I don't mind doing any of that stuff.
But if the government is preventing me from getting married, because You know, there's a coronavirus and it's just harder.
I mean, it took us a long time just to get the paperwork, to get the license, because nothing's easy.
You know, you can't go to the office in person and you got to do things from the mail.
And there's a website, but it doesn't look like it worked.
So you're not really sure if it can through.
Then you have to get a person who takes it in person down there for you and signs it.
It's like they've made it unnecessarily complicated.
But does anybody know why the ceremony matters?
Does the ceremony matter just because you have a witness?
I mean, I could get a witness to sign a document.
It doesn't need to be a ceremony.
So here's the point.
Here's my point. I don't believe the government gets to tell me if I'm married.
Do you agree with me?
Would you agree that the government is not in control of whether I am married?
I'm married. That's it.
So it's not the government's decision.
I don't want their opinion on it.
When things are back to normal, as soon as we can do the ceremony, we'll do it.
So we'll wrap up the details.
But don't tell me I'm not married.
I'm just not legally married.
Somebody says, why at your age get married?
Just stay as domestic partners.
Well, there are lots of reasons, but one of them, and a lot of it has to do with the level of commitment you're showing to each other, etc.
But a lot of it is financial, right?
Because you want to...
You're both committing yourself and you have to know that there's a financial safety for both of you, etc.
So that part's just common sense.
You have to get that taken care of.
But the other part is just existing in a world that requires labels.
Yeah, the optics of it is exactly as somebody is saying.
The ability to say somebody is my wife is really convenient.
It's really easy.
It's clean. It says everything you need to say.
All those other words for it, this is my domestic partner, blah, blah, blah, blah.
It just seems to minimize the other person and it just takes something away from it.
So, of course, it's a considered decision, but there are some just advantages to it.
It just makes everything a little bit cleaner in our current system.
Prenup, of course.
Yes. Prenup is just pretty much standard business if you're my age and you have assets.
Somebody's asking about divorce and division of assets.
No, don't worry. I'm an adult.
I live in the real world.
I know all the risks and we do what we needed to do.
Oh, did Project Veritas drop a new video?
How about that?
Let's look at it.
Don't go away. Don't go away.
The best part of this Periscope just happened.
All right. So, remember I told you last week that there would be some major red pills dropping?
And I said, it's not one story.
It's going to be like a quilt in which there will be squares of the quilt which will be dropping from the sky.
And one of these squares may have just dropped.
Let's say Facebook Project Veritas and see what comes up.
Project Veritas exposed CNN and Facebook.
Is this the new one?
No, that's the old one.
Let's see what Project Veritas has going.
Project Veritas.
Alright, why is this not coming up?
Alright, looks like this is the new one.
Damn it. Alright, we'll talk about this tomorrow, but give me a chance to look it up.
623, here it is.
Daily Caller has it. Project Veritas video shows Facebook content moderators discussing censoring conservatives, reveals, quote, exception given to Don Lemon for hate speech.
So, let me play it for you.
Have you not heard it? Let me play it for you.
You don't have to see the faces because they're all sort of semi-concealed and stuff.
Let me know if you can't hear it.
Let me know if you can't hear it.
It's simple. As you say, be brave.
I am more brave than I am scared of any...
could give me for breaking some stupid NDA.
I think the truth is more powerful than any NDA.
To stick up for the voice of the people.
Facebook's notorious for it.
And they say they don't, but it's clear that people's content don't come up because it's been defiltered off the queue.
It's a very progressive company who's very anti-MAGA.
If you see a conservative country, just get rid of it.
What is?
I don't give a .
I'll delete it.
I'll delete it.
Zach McElroy came to Project Veritas because of what he saw at his job at Facebook in Tampa.
Florida. He saw and filmed evidence of structural and cultural bias inside Facebook discriminating against Republicans and conservatives.
McElroy's story raises serious doubts about the under oath testimony of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to Congress, where he claimed Facebook has no political bias.
What percentage of the flagged posts in the civic harassment queue, as it's called, were Republican conservative?
I saw a stark contrast between Republicans versus Democrats in that queue.
I saw upwards of 75 to 80 percent What does that tell you about Facebook's slash cognizance algorithm here?
Well, certainly the algorithm is not human, but it had to be made by a human.
So for 75 to 80 percent of the posts to be Targeting Republicans and conservatives.
You can say it was a bot, but somebody had to design that algorithm.
So really, somebody at Facebook.
Some people on Capitol Hill have expressed interest in this ratio that you speak of.
Are you willing to potentially testify under oath that three quarters of the post that you saw flagged were in one political direction?
To the best of my knowledge and ability, yes.
To me, censorship online is one of the biggest issues facing us in the lead-up to the 2020 election.
Well, insofar as I was not somebody who was working behind the scenes on policy, but rather as someone who was enforcing policy, I saw everybody around me, and I saw myself, and I did a little bit of comparing, and I thought, you know, there really are not very many conservatives here.
Because there are not very many conservatives, I really don't think there are very many people sticking up for the voice of conservatives at a company that handles all the...at a company that handles the flow of conversations.
Basically, a large portion of the discourse online.
And we are essentially in charge of what gets said and what gets stifled.
You mentioned the election, and talk a little bit more about your concerns as it pertains to Facebook meddling or being involved in the 2020 election.
Well, we know publicly, and as someone even before I started working there, we saw plenty of...
We've seen plenty of statements from Mark Zuckerberg publicly about how they don't want to meddle in the election.
They want to give everybody a free Let's go to the Trump cartoon.
This one here. Is this something that you...
Alright, it's a little bit longer than I thought it was going to be, but I will call your attention to it and say you should all watch it, because today might be a lot different than you thought it was going to be.
So, I think you're going to find out a lot in this video.
I haven't seen it all, but it's going to be a fun day.
