Episode 1045 Scott Adams: Republicans Being Hunted, Trump Masks, CHOP Stop, Racist Statue Chess
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Seattle's Mayor Durkan's masterful handling of CHOP
I borrowed AOC's persuasion technique
My "If Biden is elected" tweet
Trump supporters are already being targeted for violence
Violence is on the table, Trump supporters are being hunted
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
But first, before we get to that, you know what you need to do.
You need to grab yourself a cup or a mug or a glass of tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or a flask of a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
And I think you can see it in the world already.
It's already working. It's called the simultaneous step and it happens now.
Go! Mmm.
Delightful. Sublime.
Excellent. Three, two, one, until Scott tells us we are wrong that Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested.
Well, I believe she was arrested.
I believe she was.
So, the simulation has delivered to us once again.
Entertainment, it's non-stop.
How much do you want to know what Ghislaine Maxwell is going to tell you when she cuts a deal?
The most exciting news day you'll ever have will be this headline.
Ghislaine Maxwell cuts a deal.
Can you imagine?
I don't know if she can.
I've got a feeling she may not survive the incarceration process, but we'll see what happens.
All right. So the CHOP was dismantled.
The Capitol Hill occupied people or whatever it was.
And were you surprised that there was no real violence when they got cleared out?
What do you think of that?
Have I ever told you about the fake because?
So that's the term I put on it, and it's based on the book Influence by Cialdini, in which he talks about an experiment in which you can prove that people will do things just because you said because.
Our brains are wired in a way that when you hear the word, actually just the word, because, your brain says, oh, there's a reason.
Because the word because is there.
And you can use the word because and then add nonsense after it, and people will still, at least in a statistical way, will be more likely to give you what you want just because you used the word because.
Now I've taken that and I've extended it to the concept that you're not using the word, but you're giving somebody a reason that they wanted a reason to do something.
Now, let me game this out for you.
So, in my opinion, the mayor of Seattle, Jenny Durkin, played this brilliantly.
I know most of you are going to disagree with this, but in my opinion, this could not have been played better, honestly.
It was one of the most masterful examples of leadership I've ever seen.
Now, There's another interpretation which fits the facts just as well.
Remember, you've got two movies going on here.
They both fit the facts.
Because the other set of facts would be she didn't care about any of this until they started threatening her own personal residence, at which point she got mad and then police cleared them out.
But here's how I see it.
And I said this from the start.
So from day one, I was on the side of No, let this play out a little bit.
Let it play out a little bit.
Because if you do it right away, the energy is too high and you just cause the opportunity for more death and more videos of police beating people up and resistance and God knows what.
So if the police had acted aggressively on day one or two or three, you don't know what would have happened.
But in all likelihood, because the temperature was so high in terms of people's attitudes, it was very likely going to end not well and spark more protests, which themselves would not end well.
So if you're trying to quell protests across the country, the last thing you want to do is go hard the first moment you can.
You want to let the temperature come down a little bit, and then you could go through.
So here's my hypothesis.
That by letting the occupiers in CHOP experience the life which they did not intend to be permanent, the people who occupied it, they didn't start out the month and say, hey, I think I'll go live in a tent on the street somewhere with no shower.
I think the longer they stayed there, the more they wanted, wait for it, a fake because.
They needed a reason to leave that they could say it wasn't our choice.
You see where I'm going?
They all wanted to leave by the time the police asked them to leave.
Now, I say all, obviously nothing applies to everybody, but you know what I mean.
That the mood there, almost certainly, because the mayor had waited long enough, this is the brilliant part in my opinion.
Now, for those of you keeping score...
Am I not calling a Democrat mayor brilliant for a specific piece of strategy and persuasion, right?
So for those of you who are going to attack me later, blah, blah, blah, you're up President Trump's ass.
You just say good things about him.
You're in the tank. Just listen to me for a while.
I think this was brilliant leadership because she took the temperature down by agreeing with him.
She called it the summer of love.
She was completely non-threatening and it took the energy out.
That had to be done.
You had to reduce the energy and she did it, simply by not creating a counterforce that would cause them to get worked up again.
Once they had experienced living there for a while, however many weeks it was, you know they wanted to leave.
You know, again, not every single person, but you know they did not want to live there for the rest of their lives.
What they needed, they really needed, was for their mayor to give them a fake because, a reason to leave that didn't look like they had made their own decision.
And she did. So the police came through.
There were very little video of it.
The video we got was not from the Major news outlets, I think.
It looks like the media kept a lid on this story, or they couldn't report it.
I don't know. It's one of those.
But I don't...
In terms of reporting, were there any casualties?
I think they cleared the entire chop.
Correct me if I'm wrong, because the reporting is pretty sketchy.
So whoever said wrong, Scott, in all caps, you might be new here.
Because what happens when you say WRONG, Scott, in all caps?
Well, I think the other people can tell you.
Alright, so, blocked.
You got blocked. There's always space for reasons.
So, you can give them.
So, that's my take.
Now, the other take, which fits the facts just as well.
So, let me give attention to the alternative movie here.
Which one of these fits the facts the best?
The other one is that she's an incompetent Democrat mayor who botched it from the beginning, because if she'd been tougher in the beginning, they wouldn't have taken over the chop in the first place.
And that the only reason that she got tough in the end and had them cleared out is that she only cared about herself because they threatened her own home, and then it became serious to her.
Now, does that fit all the facts?
It does. It does.
Doesn't it? It fits them completely.
It fits them as well as my description did.
So if you were going to pick which of those is the real one, here's how you would do it.
You would say to yourself, let's make a prediction from both of these two movies.
My movie says this mayor is a smart operator.
Which would predict you'll see future smart things coming from her.
Right? Now, if the other movie is correct, and she's just thoroughly incompetent and selfish or something, then you would expect that she would not do clever things in the future.
So, let's watch.
If I'm wrong, I would completely be open to that because I'm just saying that this view of the world fits, you know, the movie fits.
Doesn't mean it's right. We'll see which one predicts.
That's how you know. All right.
So yesterday I was telling you that Trump's, let's say, silence about masks...
was disqualifying, meaning that you can't really support a president who is not pushing masks or promoting the use of masks during a pandemic.
It's disqualifying.
I've been the biggest Trump supporter around in terms of his technique, more so than policy, but in terms of him personally in his technique, I've been one of his biggest supporters.
And even I would say, If he's not promoting face masks during a pandemic, that's disqualifying.
Seriously, that's pretty disqualifying.
But yesterday he did.
Now, you could say to yourself, ah, he didn't come down strong.
He just sort of said they're a good idea.
He'd wear it in certain circumstances, etc., But the news is reporting that the president is pro-mask now.
I don't think he was ever anti-mask, but it was coming off that way.
So he's sort of lukewarm, tepid, masks are a good thing.
I suppose that's a good place to be.
I got a message from Vladimir Putin yesterday, not directly, in which the message was that Russia wants to be an ally with the United States to team up against China.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that Putin sent me a message that Russia wants to be friends with the United States against China?
Well, if you were a subscriber to the Locals platform, you'd know what I'm talking about.
The rest of you should just assume it didn't happen.
So I don't know if you heard I made a little news yesterday, quite a bit of news with the AOC play.
Now, those of you who were with me from the beginning of this play got to watch it unfold.
Now, here's the background.
You remember when AOC said, we have 12 years left before climate change kills us?
She never really said that, but it was interpreted that way.
What she said was, if you don't get really serious in the next 12 years, the future doesn't look so good.
But it got turned into, simplified to, you're all dead in 12 years.
Now, AOC... As I've said from the beginning, knows persuasion.
And it was really, really good persuasion because it made you focus on it and it made you, you know, look at her first offer.
The first offer was so extreme that whatever comes after that doesn't seem so big anymore, which was perfect, right?
So if she says, you're going to be dead in 12 years, she never really said that.
She never said that.
But that's how it's interpreted, so she allowed that interpretation In a sense, allowed it by not pushing back as hard as she could.
And that just brings attention to her topic.
What do I teach you about persuasion?
50% of persuasion is getting people's attention.
Because you can't persuade if they're not paying attention.
That's basic.
If you don't get people's attention, you're not persuading.
So she does that better than just about anybody in the world.
And she got your attention on climate change and then you're already primed for her persuasion.
So it worked really well.
Now the thing that works about that is that the claim sounds ridiculous and believable at the same time.
Now let me explain that.
So to say that, you know, we have 12 years to get this right or we're all going to die, is both ridiculous, like just on the surface you say, well, that doesn't sound right.
But at the same time, it's completely believable that That somebody believes it.
In other words, even if you don't believe it, you are convinced that somebody else does believe it.
That's the magic sauce.
If you get that combination right, you're going to have a viral everything.
And your message will be the one that people focus on.
So I borrowed that technique.
And I told you I was borrowing it.
So those of you who are watching this develop, you know that I told you I was doing this, right?
So none of this is an accident.
And what I told you is that, and I told you I think soon after I'd done it, that I'd tweeted that if Biden is elected, there's a good chance you'll be dead in a year.
You see, that's the same as AOC's play, the 12 years you'll be dead.
Now, when you hear me say this, There's a good chance you'll be dead in a year if Biden is elected.
What are the two things you think?
Let's say you're a Democrat.
The first thing you think is, that's ridiculous, right?
Just like you said, we'll be dead in 12 years from climate change.
That's ridiculous! So that's the first part.
Then what's the second part?
That somebody believes it's true.
So when they read this, did they think that Republicans, or even that I, believe it's true?
Yeah, they acted exactly like that.
So they fell into the AOC trap, and I guess I was trending on Twitter for a while.
And I was the subject of many articles yesterday.
Hit pieces, of course.
I didn't read any of them. I just looked at the titles.
I always think it's funnier if somebody writes a hit piece about me and I don't read it.
For some reason, that's funnier.
I'm the only one who gets the joke.
It's like, ah, you wrote a hit piece about me and I didn't read it.
Because I'm actually not interested.
It's actually easy to do.
If I were interested, it would be hard to not read it.
But I'm actually not interested.
I literally just...
I look at the articles and I think, I've got better things to do than reading it.
My favorite troll yesterday was he tweeted something that he thought was an insult and I just retweeted it because it was such a weak attack that I just, I think I'll amplify it.
And I'll tell you, there's nothing more humiliating than thinking you're attacking a public figure and they just retweet it without a comment.
No comment at all.
Just retweet it. That's as hard as you can fail in your criticism if the target of your criticism says, I think I'll retweet this.
So I did that yesterday to the entertainment of some of my followers who noticed.
So here's the argument that backs up.
Now I'm going to go full AOC for you.
So AOC, once she has your attention, will give you her argument about climate change.
So now that I have people's attention about this, you might get hunted down if you're a Republican, I will give you my argument, because now I have your attention.
Now, not you, because most of you are kind of Trump supporters.
But what I'm trying to do is attract attention from the people who are not my natural audience and controversy does that really well but it's not a controversy that's not grounded in fact and by fact I mean statistical likelihood that is to say nobody can predict the future no matter how well you watch me do it it doesn't mean I'm gonna do it right the next time right predicting the future I would say I have the best track record of any public figure.
It's hard to compare, but at the moment, probably right up there, in the top 10% at least, of people who are predicting what's going to happen.
I get my share wrong, as does everybody.
But nobody can really predict the future.
You can only say, well, my best guess is that the odds of this happening is a little more than the odds of this or that happening.
So that is the context in which I said there's a good chance that if Biden gets elected, you'll be dead in a year.
Now, who is you? You, of course, I was speaking on Twitter, so it was Trump supporters because that's 95% of my audience on Twitter.
So is it true that there's a chance, and I said a good chance, that you would be hunted and If you're a Trump supporter and Biden gets into office, let me support that assertion.
Now remember, the assertion is not that it will happen.
The assertion is that there's a good chance it will happen.
Now you're smart enough to know the distinction between there's a chance of something happened and a good chance of something happened versus I predict it will happen.
That's very different. Okay?
So there are multiple things that could happen.
One of them, which you must guard against, looks like this.
Biden becomes president, and Democrats now being sort of in power, let's say Congress is all Democrat too.
First of all, is that possible?
Well, according to the polls, that's what's going to happen.
So, so far, that looks like a reasonable future, right?
A good chance that Biden will be elected, just based on the polls.
Now, if he's elected, is he going to go hard against police?
I'm sorry. Is he going to go hard against protesters once he gets elected?
It's possible.
It's possible. Joe Biden could actually be the one who goes hard against protesters because maybe a Democrat can, you know, without causing all the racism problems.
Or maybe Kamala Harris can if she's the real power behind the presidency at the time.
So that's the other possibility.
But let's just game out the different possibilities.
One possibility is that Biden is president and they just sort of don't support the police against the protesters.
The protesters would continue to do What they do, because it's working.
Nobody stops doing things that work.
So if the protesters say, hey, we're gaining ground and nobody's stopping us, they're going to keep going.
So what does that look like?
Well, I interviewed yesterday a young woman who lost her job because her co-workers found an old tweet from 2010 that said she liked Donald Trump.
2010. That's before he was even running for president.
There were some other little clues they thought they found to suggest that she was a Trump supporter, which was certainly not any overt thing she was doing, and lost her job over it.
How common is that?
Well, let me ask you, can you put on a MAGA hat and walk through an urban area without being assaulted?
Not really. If you put on any kind of a hat or Trump sticker, Or anything that suggested you were a Trump supporter and went into a crowded area, wouldn't you expect to be assaulted?
You would expect that, right?
I'm almost guaranteed. So if you have a world where people are already losing their jobs for being Trump supporters, cannot in a public space have any indication on them that they're Trump supporters without being assaulted, it's very much like being Jewish in Hitler's Germany,
isn't it? I don't know what that was like, but if you were Jewish in Hitler's Germany, you probably didn't want to go outside wearing clothes that broadcast that you were Jewish.
I'm sure some people did.
But you probably would prefer people didn't notice, if that was possible, because you might get some abuse.
So it's somewhat like that to be a Republican.
Now, if you're a Democrat, do you see that?
That's sort of invisible to you, wouldn't you say?
I would say Democrats are completely unaware, that's been my observation, that the rank-and-file ordinary Democrats are completely unaware of how much pressure is being put on Trump supporters, economically, employment-wise, socially, and risk of violence, risk of assault.
So is it a big, is it a really big It's one of the maybe three paths that are about equal possibility right now.
Now, one of my critics tweeted That I don't understand what Black Lives Matter want, basically.
They just want better policing and less discrimination.
And doesn't everybody want that?
To which I said, I don't think you're listening to the interviews and the speeches given by the Black Lives Matter leaders.
Because here's what the message has morphed into.
First of all, you've heard Hawk Newsome on CNN, I think, CNN. Might have been Fox News, but he's been on a few things.
So he's a leader of Black Lives Matter in New York, and he said directly that violence is still on the table.
Now, and what he said was, we need this revolution.
Could be violent, could be non-violent.
And he wasn't picking a favorite, basically.
The implication is that if they don't get what they want with nonviolence, then violence is warranted because the problem is big enough, and violence is always the way the society changes.
That's essentially Hawke's argument, if I've captured it right.
So he does not say, I prefer violence, but he also doesn't say...
I didn't hear him say he preferred non-violence, sort of silent on the preference.
He's just saying that they have an end goal, whatever that looks like, and that they are somewhat agnostic about whether violence is part of it.
If it has to be, it has to be.
And I think Hawke is correct when he says, historically, people, Don't be hypocrites because basically the whole country was founded on violence.
Everything you have came from violence.
So don't be so surprised if there's more of it in the future.
That's actually a perfectly valid statement.
So let's take Black Lives Matter leader Hawk Newsome at his word that violence is on the table if they don't get what they want for nonviolence.
Now I would say that would be true of every army, wouldn't you say?
And every terrorist.
Every terrorist, I think, would agree with what Hawk Musum said.
Violence is on the table, but if we can get everything we want without nonviolence, oh, we'll do that.
Yeah, why wouldn't we? Of course.
So, Al-Qaeda and Black Lives Matter basically have the same philosophy about violence, which is, if I don't need it, what's the point?
But if I do need it, it's on the table.
Same as a terrorist. And then here's the other change.
So it seems like a month ago, white supremacy meant one thing, but it sort of morphed, or it could be that I'm just learning how other people see the word.
I don't know which one it is.
But here's the change that might just be in my understanding.
That I've seen in the last several weeks.
It used to be that white supremacists were people who believed they were superior because of their DNA or whatever.
I've argued that I've never met one.
I just don't know anybody who thinks that.
And that it must be some trivial part of the country if I've never met one.
So I've never even seen one, really.
I mean, I've never even seen one on television.
When I say never, I mean, let's say last five years, I've never seen one, who met the definition, in my opinion, of thinking that because they were white, they were superior to other races.
That's how I used to define white supremacy, which is different from being a racist and different from being a white nationalist, a special kind of racist.
They don't require the supremacy part.
If you're just a regular racist, you have a preference, but it's not because you think you're superior, okay?
So that's a distinction.
And I thought that mattered, but it turns out I was listening to a speech, I think it was in LA, one of the Black Lives Matter.
Leaders was talking to the audience with a microphone, and the way white supremacy seems to be used at the moment is simply a description of a system that supports white people better than other people.
And that if the current system, all the systems in the United States, from judicial system to economic system to you name it, that all of them support white people staying the dominant economic power, mostly economic, but political too, in the country.
Or more economic, I think, because politically, we did have eight years of a black president, so that's pretty good, politically.
So here's your situation.
It looks like white supremacy...
The definition of it has changed from a small group of white people who think they're superior to everybody else, which is basically a vanishing breed, never seen one in five years.
That's changed to white supremacy means if you're white and you're in a system that keeps you in a good place vis-a-vis Compared to other people, you're a white supremacist.
So you would be a white supremacist simply by being white and being part of a system that's good for you.
So I'm white and I'm part of a system that seems to be good for me.
Capitalism, etc.
If you are also white and you're part of a system that other people think is good for you, and I think they'd be correct in that, it does...
Pretty much every system is built to maintain the status quo.
So I think there's something to that.
So here's the thing. If violence is on the table and the only thing that you can do to get rid of white supremacy is to dismantle the systems, and we see that you can't wear a Trump hat without being assaulted, and you see that you can't assume that you will remain employed if you're a Trump supporter,
given all those things, is it Is it a stretch to say we could get to the point of violence against just white people for being white because they're white supremacists?
Let me say it in the fast way.
If you label somebody a white supremacist in 2020, you are marking them as a target for violence.
Does anybody disagree with that?
That if you label somebody a white supremacist in 2020, you are giving an explicit, I would say explicit, approval for violence.
Anybody disagree with that?
It is approval.
So, anybody who hasn't listened to Black Lives Matter rhetoric, both in the interviews and also in the public speeches, I don't think they know what's coming.
Because what's coming is, Not, oh, thank you for changing those regulations about policing.
That's not really what they're asking for.
That was the spark.
But it has nothing to do with police reform.
If it had anything to do with police reform, the Democrats and the Republicans would be negotiating on the bills that have been proposed.
But they don't even want to.
The Democrats literally don't even want to solve police reform.
Which looks like it would be trivially easy to at least have improvements, because Republicans are already on board, and say, hey, bring on the conversation.
So what you have to understand is that Black Lives Matter wants to dismantle white supremacy, which they consider the entire system.
And if you happen to be one of the people who doesn't want that to happen, and you've been labeled a white supremacist, and violence is on the table, explicitly on the table, It is explicitly on the table.
Is that a stretch to say that one of the three paths is that Trump supporters will be hunted?
It's not even a prediction because it's already happening.
Trump supporters are already being hunted.
You don't believe me?
Why don't you wear a mask that makes you look like Jack Posobiec, who may be watching this right now.
Hi, Jack. Wear a mask that makes you look like somebody who's associated with the right and conservatism, and go to a rally.
Just walk into a rally, just being yourself, but being a recognizable supporter of the president.
That's all. You don't have to cause trouble.
You don't have to get in anybody's face.
Simply exist in the same physical location as the Black Lives Matter protester.
Will you be assaulted?
Yeah, 100%.
Now, would you say that's not hunting Republicans?
I'm not making a fucking prediction.
It's not a fucking prediction.
It's happening right now.
If you don't understand that Republicans are already being hunted...
You're not really current.
You may be locked in a Democrat silo in which you're only seeing your own news.
But good luck.
Just try putting on your Jack Posobiec disguise, you know, in other words, looking like him, and walking into a Black Lives Matter rally.
And you can even hold a sign that says Black Lives Matter.
You can even chant with them.
They will still beat your ass, or try to, or threaten you, or assault you, or throw something on you, which would be assault.
Alright, so I'm having a lot of fun.
I've grown more Twitter followers in the last 24 hours than any other 24 hours.
So what I'm watching is a lot of people who are watching what I'm doing.
Because I think you understand, this audience understands, that this is a performance.
I'm not doing individual things.
I'm doing a group of things which I'm stringing together.
And if you don't see that I'm building a thing, then you're missing the best part of the show.
So every time I draw in my trolls and my critics, and every time they write a hit piece about me, I grow stronger.
Now this doesn't work for everybody.
I don't recommend it.
If you just have a vanilla job and you want to stay out of trouble, don't do what I do because I'm looking for trouble because I can convert the energy into something productive.
You can't. Some of you can, maybe, but I wouldn't try it.
I wouldn't try it.
The odds of me being canceled are pretty high, but I like danger sometimes.
You know what's fascinating?
As we're watching the...
Now there's some talk about the Mount Rushmore.
Because two of the presidents on Mount Rushmore were slave owners.
And a lot of Republicans were joking just a week ago.
It's like, ha ha ha, next they're going to come after Mount Rushmore.
Well, it turns out Mount Rushmore is now in the crosshairs.
For exactly the reason, do you think?
Now... What do you think about that?
I was thinking maybe we should put George Floyd up there instead.
Because you could change one of the faces, let's say George Washington, and replace him with George Floyd.
Anybody like that idea?
You could probably carve it a little bit.
You might have to recess it a little bit because you'd have to change too many things in the face.
But you could... I think you could make yourself a proper George Floyd.
Because as Candace Owens provocatively points out, she complains that since she is black, she can say things I can't say.
But Candace says that black people should have better role models.
And I think, well, shouldn't that apply to everybody?
Shouldn't everybody have better role models?
Do you want George Washington to be your role model?
When he was a slave owner?
Kind of ambiguous.
But we've been told that George Floyd's, you know, whatever else he did in his life that maybe you don't approve of is not relevant.
And so unlike George Washington, where he has to be considered a As a whole, which would make him a racist.
And it would, of course.
That's just a fact.
We don't have to do that with George Floyd.
We should see him as a sympathetic character.
And I thought, well, why not take it to the next level?
Why not take it to the next level?
Put him on metal. Rushmore.
What? You don't like that idea?
Come on. Such a good idea.
Don't say racist things.
I have to block you for that.
Sorry. She can't be here saying stuff like that.
Alright. Will they make a play for Mount Rushmore?
Maybe. We'll see.
I thought it was interesting watching the Black Lives Matter people say F. Eric Garcetti.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Eric Garcetti the most accommodating white man you've ever seen in your life?
If you haven't been watching, so he's the mayor of Los Angeles, and Eric Garcetti has been absolutely pro-Black Lives Matter from the jump.
He's a Democrat, knows what his base wants.
He's been completely on their side and doing the minimal that I guess a mayor needs to do But he's unambiguously on their side.
So what do the Black Lives Matter people say about white Eric Garcetti who is completely on their side?
Fuck him. They were chanting it.
They were chanting, Fuck Eric Garcetti.
He's all in on their side.
And they were chanting, F him.
Now, the issue is, as I said before, he's part of the whole system.
In other words, you can't take him and treat him separately.
He's part of the system as well, and that the system is white supremacy.
So it doesn't matter if he says all the right things, and even if he does all the right things, he's still part of a system that has to be dismantled.
If you're Eric Garcetti, do you say to yourself, you know, if these Black Lives Matter people get everything they want, I'm safe?
Is Eric Garcetti personally safe, let's say career-wise, let's say economically, maybe even physically, if Black Lives Matter did get everything they want?
Remember, Black Lives Matter is a group that Eric Garcetti very much approves of and supports.
So if the group that he approves of and supports gets what they want, what would happen to Eric Garcetti?
What would happen to Eric Garcetti is exactly what Black Lives Matter is telling you.
He'd be fucked.
They chanted it.
You don't have to guess what they're thinking.
If a crowd chants, fuck Eric Garcetti, why not listen to him?
Was it not Maya Angelou who said, if somebody tells you who they are, you should listen to them?
Black Lives Matter is telling you who they are.
And they're saying that this white guy who is absolutely, completely on their side is going to get fucked.
Because he's a white guy and he's part of the white supremacist system.
So, you got that.
Michigan State...
University, they pressured Stephen Su, HSU, I don't know if I can pronounce his name right, I think it's Su, to resign from his position as Vice President of Research because he talked about some research that came from that university.
It wasn't his own.
So he was referring to, in a tweet, I guess, some research that his own university did, but not him.
It wasn't anything he was involved in.
That showed that there wasn't much difference between police shootings of black and white Americans.
So just referring to research from his own institution got him pressured to leave his position as vice president of research.
Now apparently he also was accused of some tweet about genetic differences And the context which they leave out is that that's his field.
His field is genetics.
That's like his field.
So he tweeted out something from his field, and he's going to lose his job for it.
It wasn't even something he did.
It was just something he talked about in his field.
All right. So I guess you can't talk about stuff without getting canceled.
Let's see, what else we got going on?
You know, the hardest part about our politicians handling the protests and the occupied zones, and also the coronavirus, it's the same problem, is that we don't let leaders do math with people's lives.
And it's the whole job.
The job of a leader is to make Hard decisions in which you know that no matter which way you go, somebody's going to die.
But it'll be different people, depending on the path you take, and you're only trying to have the fewest of them die if you can.
So leaders are usually choosing among paths in which somebody's going to die.
You know, even the social stuff, not just international war stuff.
But even social stuff, if you don't have enough of a social net, people die, for example.
So with the coronavirus, the thing that Trump can't say, the thing that Republicans can't say, the thing that no politician can say is this.
Because this is what a leader would say.
Here's the deal. The economy is just another way of expressing lives.
In other words, if I say GDP of 1%, you could translate that directly into saved 10,000 lives or whatever it is.
Because economics and people living or dying are so connected that it's almost like just another word for how many people survive.
So if you were a real leader, you would say something like this.
We'd like to reopen the state.
We know infections will continue to go up, but it will be good for the economy.
And the reason we're doing this seems cruel because it's good for the economy, which seems like cold capitalist thinking, but actual real people will die.
Your grandmother might die if we make this decision.
But I, as a leader, have decided that people will also die if the economy is bad.
It takes a little longer.
But even more people could die if we don't get our economy going.
So, I've decided that if 20,000 people have to die because of coronavirus, but the benefit will be opened in the economy, my hunch is, because I can't prove it, my hunch is that I'll save more than 20,000 people, but different people.
By doing this. So yes, I'm making a decision in which 20,000 people are going to die who would not have died if we had stayed closed.
Theoretically, because we get to a vaccine someday, maybe.
But I'm going to make a decision.
20,000 people might die, but I think we're still going to come out ahead because we'll save more than 20,000 by having a functioning economy.
Now that's what a leader needs to say, but you would lose your job immediately upon saying that.
So we as citizens do a terrible job of supporting our leaders because we can't let our leaders say the truth.
We can't. I'm being prompted.
I forget where it was, but there was a statue of an elk, E-L-K, an elk, you know, a big animal, that was set on fire and defaced, I guess because it was a statue.
And I agree with that because I went to an Elks Club meeting once and they were all white.
So I get why they're getting rid of those elk statues, even if they're not related to the Elks Club.
It's just, you know, symbolism.
Symbolism is important.
So you also have the story about the recent Harvard graduate, a woman, who said she wanted to stab anybody who said all lives matter, Trump supporters mostly.
And that caused her to lose her job at Deloitte.
And she was back on film crying about it.
Now, have they lowered the standards for Harvard?
Because you would expect somebody from Harvard, somewhere in that educational process, you'd think somewhere they would have been taught Don't go on social media and threaten to kill your political rivals by stabbing them to death.
It's just not really good for your future employment.
But I guess that didn't come up.
Now, here's what I think this really tells you.
Imagine somebody going through Harvard and then doing this video saying that she wanted to literally stab Trump supporters and did the motion, stab, stab, stab, and she was actually very angry.
And tell me, how could you go through that whole process and not know that that would get you in trouble?
It has to be that she had been so in a bubble of like-minded people that she literally couldn't imagine that there was somebody else in the world who was seeing the video and that they might not appreciate the enthusiasm with which she would like to see them killed.
I mean... If you assume that her IQ is probably very high because she got into Harvard, right?
These are not dumb people.
Harvard does not produce dumb people.
That just doesn't happen. So the only explanation is that she was in such a bubble, she just didn't even know the other world existed, which is tragic in her case.
So I think Harvard failed her hard, and that cost her.
Here's a racist story of a guy named Paul McCowns.
He was an African-American man who walked into an Ohio bank recently clutching, they say, his first paycheck.
Why do you have to say clutching?
That's racist. So this story itself is racist.
He's not clutching his first paycheck.
He has a paycheck.
How about that? But if he's a black man, he's clutching it?
No, I don't think he was clutching his paycheck.
He just had it.
Went into the bank. Alright, so that's my rant.
So he got a new job at an electric company.
Took in his first paycheck.
It was $1,000. And the teller called the police.
So the story is, racist teller calls the police on a black man who's just trying to cash a check.
Just trying to cash a check.
Now, what is it they don't tell you in this story?
Well, that's why I'm here, because I used to be a bank teller.
I have refused to cash the checks for white people.
Allow me to tell you the following story, very much like this, but without the calling the police part.
When I was a bank teller, a man walked into my branch, put a check on the counter, I think it was like $5,000 or something, Which was a lot of money back in those days.
And I asked him if he had an account at my bank and he said he did not.
Then I asked him...
The check he wanted to cash was too big for my level of approval as a teller because he didn't have an account.
But the check he was cashing did have an account.
So that's why you go to that bank because that's the bank...
Where the money is coming from, and sometimes you can cash it there.
So I said, I can't cash this check for you, but I'll get a manager to see if they can.
So I get a manager, and he waits patiently, and I wait on other customers while he's waiting for the manager, and he's just waiting, waiting, just perfectly nice guy, just waiting.
And the manager comes over, and she approves it, and I pay him his money.
And afterwards, my manager comes over and she says, do you know whose check you just refused to cash?
And I go, not really.
I mean, I looked at his name because that was part of the process.
But you don't really register names when you're a teller.
It's just information flying by.
And she goes, you just refused to cash a check for Bill Packard, the founder of Hewlett-Packard, one of the richest men in the country.
You just refused to cash his check.
You know why? Didn't trust him.
I didn't trust him.
I did not trust a billionaire white guy because he didn't bank at my bank.
I'm sorry. Now, keep that in mind.
Now, here's the story of a guy who also did not bank at the bank.
Same as the billionaire I turned down.
So if he was turned down, or somebody went to the manager, you'd say, that's just part of the process.
That's not racist. But whereas I did not call 911 for Bill Packard, this teller did call and said, quote, I have a customer here.
He's not our customer.
Check. Actually, she says.
And he's trying to cash a check, and the check is fraudulent.
It does not match our records.
What's that mean? Now if you've been a bank teller, let me tell you what it means.
The check was written on an account from that bank.
The bank teller has access to the records of that account.
So the teller looked at the check, looked at the number on the check, looked at the amount on the check, and then presumably, I don't know, checked the numbers on her list, Maybe it was out of order.
Maybe there was something irregular.
There was something that the teller checked that tipped her off that the check was fraudulent.
Was it, for example, a $100 check that had a zero added?
That probably can't happen.
Was there something about it that didn't look right that was just a mistake?
Because if it was just a mistake, like there was something hinky about the check, but it was otherwise fine, was she allowed to call 911 and announce a crime?
Maybe. That might have actually been the actual process.
So when you hear this story, the part that's left out is why did the bank teller call 911?
You don't call the bank teller...
The bank teller does not call the police unless it's obviously a crime.
You don't call the police because black people cash checks.
This story is racist shit because it's not true.
It's just not true.
Meaning that the context is left out of why the teller thought there was a crime.
It doesn't have anything to do with black.
It was a check. Either this check looks like it works, in other words, it's compatible with the records and what you know, or it doesn't.
It had nothing to do with the race of the person there.
Nothing. And any bank teller will agree with me.
Ask anybody who's done the job of a bank teller, do you think that's a racist story or there was just something wrong with the check?
100% of the tellers will say, Well, if there was something wrong with the check, which we still need to find out, by the way, if there was something wrong with the check, that's kind of the end of the story.
Because do you know what happens to a bank teller if they cash a bad check?
Let me ask you. Do you know what happens to a bank teller?
Oh, I just took my ring off for typing.
Somebody's asking me about my ring.
Yeah, I'm still getting married. Don't worry.
But it's hard to type sometimes with a ring.
Do you have that problem?
This finger doesn't feel like it's flying free sometimes when I'm typing.
But I'll get used to it, I think.
Anyway, so that's a fake racist story.
You can ask any bank teller to find out.
Alright. Well, I think I've done everything I wanted to do here.
Let me just see if there's anything else to talk about.
I don't think so. Alright, I think we hit all the high points.
Is there anything I missed? The Ghislaine Maxwell story will be just so tantalizing, but we're not going to know anything for a long time, I'll bet.
Need more practice?
Yeah, I'll get used to it.
I think I just have to get used to it.
But I was actually hitting the wrong keys.
I actually hit the wrong keys because it's sort of a thick ring.
