All Episodes
Aug. 22, 2020 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:18:00
Episode 1100 Scott Adams: Cognitive Tests Biden Would Fail, How I Plan to Take Biden Out of the Race, TDS Cures, Brennan, and More

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: Drinking bleach HOAX New fake news HOAX targeting Rush Limbaugh The "Fine People" HOAX targets citizens for violence MSNBC invited me to appear...it's a trap! Politifact...NO "Truth-O-Meter" for "Fine People" HOAX? Biden's GIGANTIC strategic mistake, "Fine People" HOAX ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody, come on in.
Come on in. Gather around.
It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams.
Best part of the day.
Every single time.
And what do you need to have the best coffee with Scott Adams?
Well, you've got to bring your good attitude.
Of course. You've got to bring your sexy self.
You're wondering, how do I know you're sexy?
Oh, I know.
I know. Because you're here.
And you probably know because you're also quite smart.
How do I know you're quite smart?
It's because you're here.
And you know that all you need is...
Copper mugger, glass of tanker, chalice of stein, a canteen drink, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine head of the day, the thing that makes everything better except Joe Biden's broken brain.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip, and it happens now.
Go. Delightful.
Sublime. I hope it was just as good for you.
Well, let's start with some fun topics first.
You may have seen a clip in which Van Jones over on CNN was saying of Biden's acceptance speech that, I'm paraphrasing, but he said that they were prepared to To praise it, even if it wasn't that good.
And everybody said, hey, hey, see?
See? You're admitting that you're not trying to present the truth.
Now, first of all, Van Jones is not one of CNN's news professionals.
He's there to be a political voice.
But I'll tell you what I like about Van Jones, and it's one of the things I like about Trump.
When Trump is BSing you, you always sort of know it, which makes it okay.
If he's always BSing everybody all the time, he's always in sales mode, if you will, hyperbole mode, you just say, oh, there's another one.
And you're okay with it.
It doesn't bother you because there's sort of an honesty because it comes with a wink.
I know what you're doing. Wink, wink.
It's only when somebody tries to sell their dishonesty as actually the truth that it gets under your skin.
You're like, ah, that's just not the truth.
But if you give me a wink, I go, okay, I see where you're going with this.
And when Van Jones said, yeah, we were willing to, we were ready to come out and say this was a good speech even if it wasn't, But then he goes on to say it was the greatest speech Joe Biden's ever given.
Now, do you believe him?
Do you believe that he really thought it was Joe Biden's best speech when he just winked at you?
He literally just winked at you and told you that he would have no intention of shading it any way other than it was a great speech and that he tells you it was an extra great speech.
I have to say I just appreciate it Because it's not hiding anything.
There's a transparency there that you have to appreciate.
So I give him good grades on that.
I always like Van Jones.
Even if I disagree with him on some political stuff, I always think he's the real deal.
So yesterday, I think it was yesterday, I was trying to deprogram my most TDS-infected friend, and I've mentioned him before, and the reason I use him as my example is that he's so smart.
If he were not really, really smart and also really well-informed, this wouldn't be interesting.
It's just that, you know, you can't blame him for being dumb or You know, just not following the news or something, because it's not that.
So you've limited to TDS, or I have it, right?
Or I'm crazy.
Those are the two things you have left once you've determined that people are smart and well-intentioned and reasonably informed.
And one of the hoaxes that he believed is that Trump had suggested drinking disinfectants.
Now, you've all heard that one, right?
The news widely reported that Trump had at least noodled on the idea publicly of maybe drinking disinfectants.
That never happened.
It's just fake news.
But my friend believed it, and as evidence, he said, look, it's right there on the video.
You don't have to wonder if it happened.
Just look at the video.
Now, here was the interesting part.
Remember, My friend is logical, very committed to rational thought, which is the important part.
Very committed to reason and data and rational thought.
And I said, you know, I've watched that too, and it doesn't say that.
And I had to go back and look at it again.
And I had explained to him that if you didn't know that there was legitimately a light technology that the researchers were They were actively talking about, at that period, they were actively talking about it.
It was a conversation that I tweeted about, I talked about on Periscope, about putting light, UV light, a certain kind, on a ventilator, sticking it, inserting it into the body, and it would maybe shine that light on your trachea, possibly all the way to your lungs.
And they didn't know if it would work.
It was one of those things that had potential because the light would kill a virus, but it doesn't hurt cells.
Although, by the way, I think there was a warning today from the FDA saying that maybe that UV light is not so safe.
So we have new information since then.
But I went back and I looked at it, and I could see that Trump introduced the topic by talking about light being used externally.
And then he said, is there something you could do, you know, Like that.
But then he used the word disinfectant, which is the word that had been used by the researchers themselves.
Light as a disinfectant.
That's exactly what it is.
So he used the word disinfectant once, separated by a little bit of time, From the time he was specifically talking about light as a disinfectant.
So there you'd say to yourself, oh, wait a minute.
Is that a new topic?
Because he talked about light as a disinfectant, and then he talked about just the word disinfectant, and there was a little bit of time that went by.
So you say, oh, that could be a new topic.
Maybe he's talking about drinking bleach.
Except... That if you listen to how he bookends the topic, he makes sure that you knew it was light.
So he started with light, talked about things, but used the word disinfectant by itself, and then he closed that topic by making sure you knew it was about light.
Now, once I pointed this out to my friend and sent him a link to the actual article that said they were testing this exact thing, and the article was dated from that period, And I told him that...
So then my friend said, yeah, but you can't tell me that Trump was aware of this obscure little thing.
To which I said, yeah, I can.
Because there are enough people that follow my Twitter feed, and I personally was tweeting about it.
And I personally was doing periscopes on it.
And I do know...
That some members of the White House do, in fact, watch my periscopes and do, in fact, retweet my tweets.
In fact, the president has retweeted me, I don't know, several times.
So I know that the White House watches this topic.
And so how often do you get to tell your friend in an argument when he says, well, how would the president know about that?
How often do you ever get to say, well, you heard about it from me?
Which was sort of the best way an argument could ever go.
Now, I don't know if he heard about it from me.
I just know it's a real thing.
I talked about it. I know they watch, or some members watch, and I know that what he was talking about was exactly that thing.
If you know what that thing is and then you hear him talk about it, it's obvious that's what he's talking about.
And so once I had convinced my highly rational friend, because now he saw it was real, he knew exactly where it could have come from, me, And he saw that it had been bookended by light.
What do you think he did?
Do you think that he then said, my goodness, I didn't realize that I had been subject to a hoax all of this time.
Do you think that's how it went?
Nope. Nope.
Believe it or not, though, He did accept that the president was talking about light as a disinfectant.
Can you believe that? I actually convinced a real living person that the information that they got as news was not true on a very important point that he had believed is true and had based a good part of his opinion on.
Have you ever seen that done?
I'm trying to think of one time in my whole life I've seen somebody go from that's not a fact and I'm positive to, oh, that is a fact.
It's very rare.
So then did my friend say, I guess you make your point, Scott.
I take back everything I've said on this topic.
It's clear now that you are completely right and maybe even involved in the story.
Did he say that?
No. Here's what he said.
Well, Scott, he said, you called that fake news.
And I would say that's not fake news.
Because fake news assumes that there's an intent to fake.
Whereas this is obviously just the news people, maybe didn't know as much as you knew, or as you've explained now, as much as the president knew.
So maybe the news was just incorrect.
So that's not fake news.
That would just be news.
That's incorrect on a horrible, horrible way, because it painted a president as telling people to drink bleach, which is exactly how it was reported.
Those words, drink bleach.
Nothing like that ever happened in the real world, but that's how it was reported.
Mostly the pundits were saying the drink bleach part.
Yeah, so he changed it to the definition of what fake news is.
Maybe that's as close as you can get.
I don't know. So, I think it was...
Who said this?
You've noticed a lot of people said this, that the Democratic Convention didn't mention impeachment.
Now, isn't that mind-blowing?
That we spent all that time on impeachment, and it wasn't even brought up.
Nor has Biden brought it up, as far as I can remember.
Have you ever seen Biden talk about impeachment as being a real thing?
And you have to ask yourself, what's up with that?
Well, let me tell you what's up with that.
Speculating. Now, it could be that the Democrats have tested that approach.
One assumes that they've done polling and they've Maybe done focus groups and they know that that topic just doesn't work for them.
And that could be part of it.
But part of the reason might be, and I teach you this all the time, it's a fact of persuasion, that people's memories can merge.
So your memory of one thing, if it's in any way similar to some other thing, they can start to conflate in your mind.
And let me ask you this.
If you were to ask the average citizen today, so not when it was happening, but today, if you just stop somebody in the street, let's say a Democrat, and you say, do you remember impeachment?
What was it about?
What would they say?
Would they say accurately that it was something about Ukraine and a perfect letter and something like that?
Would they? A lot of people would.
Yes, they would.
But you know what a lot of people would say?
A lot of people would say that impeachment was about Russia collusion.
Because their brain will not separate Ukraine from Russia, even though it should.
And it'll all seem like one big ball of stuff.
And it will also seem like nonsense.
Because Trump was not removed from office.
So all they're going to know is that Russia collusion was not only a gigantic fake operation to remove the president from office, which maybe you don't want to mention your team was involved with.
So it didn't work.
But at the same time, Durham is actively investigating the very people who were behind the Russia collusion hoax.
So, I think the Democrats don't want you to be thinking about the Russia collusion hoax, and you would if you thought about impeachment, because first they wanted to impeach about that, but they couldn't find anything that was purely Russian, so they thought, what's as close as we can get to a Russian thing, maybe a Ukraine thing?
And then, the public probably just merged it all.
I'll bet the average person cannot sort out what was impeachment about Russia, Ukraine, whatever.
But they might know that Durham talked to Brennan yesterday for eight hours.
And that there's at least one part of the investigation we know was...
Falsified. You know, the lawyer, Clyde Smith, I guess he's pled guilty to falsifying FISA stuff for Carter Page investigation.
Now, that alone is one of the worst abuses of government power I've ever seen.
So I can see why they would ignore the impeachment.
Now, if you were a Democrat and it ever came up to your mind, hey, Why is the most important thing my party did last year, or it's hard to believe it was actually this year.
It seems like it was last year, but this year.
Why is the thing my party spent the most time on, their biggest criticism, they're not mentioning now?
Is it because it went well?
No, it's because it didn't go well.
So that's got to give you a little less trust in your party if you're a Democrat.
Alright, a radio station in Cleveland fired one of their news people for using a racially insensitive word.
Now when I saw the headline, I thought to myself, oh my goodness, how could anybody in 2020 use the n-word on the radio I think that's going to be okay.
How are they going to use that word and not know?
They're going to be fired immediately.
And indeed, he was fired immediately.
And then I read the article, and it wasn't the N-word, because, of course, nobody would intentionally use that word on the radio.
What he said was, and I think he was 24 or 26, it was a young guy, and he said that Kamala Harris, using his words, was the first colored First colored vice president candidate, presidential candidate. Now, he was immediately informed that that is an old-timey racially insensitive term, and he was fired.
Here's what Black Lives Matter gets wrong, like really wrong.
The right response to this Black Lives Matter should have been, you should immediately rehire that guy.
Why? He was 26, I'm being told in the comments.
Why should Black Lives Matter immediately and publicly say, whoa, whoa, whoa, you went too far.
That guy's got to get his job back.
Why? Because there was no bad intent.
He was simply somebody who didn't have, he didn't have whatever Grounding or context to know that that would be an offensive word.
Now, I've talked to you about the power of reciprocity, right?
What does it mean to the black community that there were more white people protesting for them?
Then there were black people protesting, at least in some number of places.
What does that mean to the black community, that there are so many white people who are taking their position as aggressively as possible?
It probably means a lot.
Because reciprocity, hey, you did something for me and you're asking nothing in return, is really powerful.
Now, if Black Lives Matter wanted to be persuasive, If they wanted to continue getting white people on their side to take them seriously about the things that are the serious things that need to be fixed, the best strategy for that would be reciprocity.
Reciprocity. If you miss this easy, low-hanging fruit, you don't know anything about how to persuade, except maybe fear and violence and whatever else.
But this is low-hanging fruit.
If black lives matter, and this won't happen, obviously, but let's say the black community, if anybody said, this is too far, he's been informed that that's a word not to use, it obviously was not used with any bad intent, let's draw the line here.
Let's all of us get together, white and black, and decide that the little stuff is unimportant.
And let's work on this big stuff.
Now, if they did that, how much more support would they get for everything they want?
A lot. It's a big deal.
It's not a small deal.
It's a big, big deal.
And the fact that this 26-year-old was thrown under the bus gives me a bad feeling.
It gives me a bad feeling about the black community.
Because I say to them, you know, and again...
When you talk about a group of people, you're automatically being misleading.
So keep in mind, this is nothing about any individual, and it's always risky to say anything about the average of people.
Well, this group as a whole is doing this or that.
That's never completely fair.
But the way it feels is that I'm watching tons of white people giving and giving, and quite legitimately, and quite all with the right interests, To make the world a better place, to help the people who need the greatest help.
And you can't give back this little thing.
Such a small thing.
Just give this one guy, just give him a pass.
Is that a lot to ask?
Because if you can't give that, it's free, it's easy, it's obvious.
You can't give us that.
How much do you want in return?
How much work should we put in to help, again, there's no individual who represents the group, but how much should you give to a group who can't give you that much back?
That's not asking a lot.
Alright? Because remember, we all get the lesson.
If you didn't know they're referring to somebody in 2020 as colored, if you didn't know that's offensive, now you do.
Didn't everybody come out ahead?
Aren't we all better for it?
Isn't the whole point to educate, to improve, that we become better people?
We're imperfect, but hey, we're working on it.
Nobody's perfect, but look, I'm honestly working on it, trying to do what I can.
Isn't that what you want? Apparently not.
George Papadopoulos had some interesting points.
about the fact that Brennan was interviewed by Durham.
Now, the news says that Brennan is not a target.
He is simply a person they're talking to for information relative to the whole Russia collusion stuff.
And George Papadopoulos, you all know him from, if you're following any of the Russia collusion story, you all know who he is.
He's got a new book out whose name I can't remember, but I invited him to be a guest On the Periscope to give us a little background.
I haven't got an answer yet. I just asked him before I got on.
But maybe this week, if he says yes, we'll talk to him.
He has four questions to be asked of Brennan.
Number one, ask about the Joseph Massoud, Azra Turk, I don't know who Azra Turk is, identity and handlers.
So apparently George Papadopoulos thinks there's something with this George Massoud guy That if you dug down a little bit, you would find out some stuff.
Number two, ask about the UK and Australian intelligence used against the campaign.
Have you noticed the black hole on this topic?
We're all watching this Russia collusion thing, and the words Russia, Russia, Russia, are the words in the headlines, the ones we're talking about.
But with our own eyes, we're seeing that this was a British operation.
It's not maybe a British operation.
Christopher Steele was from the British intelligence.
And then this next question gets to it the other way, also from George Papadopoulos.
Why were Trump advisors constantly being invited to London to meet with agents?
Why were they being invited to London to meet with agents?
Because the British intelligence was in on something.
Clearly, British intelligence was involved in, let's say, influencing our elections.
And also Australian intelligence.
So, do you think anybody will ask any questions about that?
Well, they might ask the questions, but I don't know if we'll ever hear the answers.
Because the answers might be something the public can't hear or isn't supposed to hear anyway.
But those are pretty good questions.
And the fourth thing that George Papadopoulos says is, maybe they should ask Brennan about lying to Congress.
And I'm thinking, are we all just going to ignore that?
Is that what's going to happen?
That Brennan could lie to Congress.
There won't be any doubt about it.
There's no doubt.
Because you see what he said and you can see what's true.
And we'll just ignore it.
We'll just act like it didn't happen.
Okay? Unless you think Brennan wasn't lying to Congress.
So, maybe. Alright, here's something that made me laugh yesterday when I realized it.
And I'll give you something that it reminds me of.
Because I'm famous, semi-famous, a little bit famous, whatever you want to call it, I often think about what would happen if I died doing something stupid.
And I feel as if the moment before I was actually dead, I would feel so dumb that I did something that could have gotten me killed, and sure enough, it did.
And those last moments before I actually died, instead of thinking, oh God, I'm going to die, That my actual thought would be, how stupid can I be?
And that would be my last breath.
And I swear, this is an actual thought I have all the time.
And an example would be, let's say I thought to myself, you know, I like to do that rock climbing thing where they don't have any support ropes on them.
What's that called? Is it like free climbing or something?
I don't have any skills for that and really...
I might be a little too old for that kind of a sport, but I think I'm going to give it a shot.
And then I'm free climbing up a cliff, and I slip.
And as I'm falling back in space, I'm not thinking to myself, oh, my life is flashing before my eyes.
I'm thinking to myself, I'm so stupid for trying to be a free-range rock climber.
So, with that in mind, this is all to make this next thing funnier.
Imagine if you will.
And I'll use Joe Biden's technique.
Close your eyes and imagine if you will.
It's the day after Election Day.
And Joe Biden has so decomposed by Election Day that it's a landslide win for Trump.
And you wake up after the election, you're a Democrat, and you realize that you would have had a better result running absolutely anybody else on the planet except Joe Biden.
Why was I so stupid?
Boom! And it's not just going to hurt because you were wrong.
It's not going to hurt because you lost.
It's not going to hurt because Trump won and you got another four years of that.
It's not going to hurt because you'll have to admit on TV or in other places that you were sure Biden would win and he didn't.
It's going to hurt because you will know the day after the election that What you kind of suspect is true already, that Joe Biden is the last person in the world you should pick to be your champion.
Did you scour the seven billion people on earth and your champion, the one that you picked to represent your brand, to save the country, if not the entire world, was the only guy who's passed his expiration date?
That was your choice?
That's like me trying to be a free rock climber.
That idea never sounded good.
Let me be clear about this.
The day after election, when you've lost, remember, running Joe Biden as your champion was never a good idea.
I mean, I understand how he got there.
It was the oddities of how primaries work, because they had name recognition, and there was one moderate, but there were lots of progressives, and they kind of gamed the system to keep Elizabeth Warren in there to take votes away from Bernie until the last minute.
So obviously the game was rigged for Biden, but that's not going to make you feel any smarter for supporting him when you did.
So when I thought of that, I just laughed.
I've decided that the best way to summarize Joe Biden's, let's say, approach to campaigning is angry, squinty, caring.
And it's better if you put a dash between angry, squinty, and caring, because that's all he's got.
He gives you his squinty eyes, and he gives you his angry demeanor, and he tells you how much he cares.
Ah, I care!
Ah! I care about this country.
I'm going to protect this country as well as I've protected my family.
What? Okay, maybe that was the wrong thing to say.
Apparently people are going to look into how well I've protected my family.
So, angry, squinty, caring.
I think that just summarizes him entirely.
So this morning Rush Limbaugh is getting the full fake news treatment.
They're doing the same trick that the fake news used to create the find people hoax and the drinking disinfectant hoaxes.
They're done the same way.
Do you know how? They're done by cutting out the clarifying part of the quote.
So if you see the first part of a quote or the first part of some statements, you might think, hey, that looks pretty bad.
But if you saw the rest of the statement, you'd say, oh, I get what you're saying.
You're not saying that bad thing.
You're putting it in a different context.
That's fine. So that's how the hoaxes are created.
They show the part that's true, and they leave out the other part that's true that would have reversed its meaning.
So they did that to Rush Limbaugh today.
And so what Rush Limbaugh really said, before I tell you how they took him out of context, Was that he was comparing the Biden bid for, let's say, empathy, maybe, or relating to him because he had lost family members.
And Rush said that we're supposed to feel sorry for Biden because his wife and child died, but then the part they cut out, which is the clarifying part, they don't show that in the headline.
They bury that in the subtitle, or they bury it in the text.
Is the fact that, but why can't we show the same sympathy for the president who just lost his brother, just lost him.
It's brand new.
The president is literally still grieving, but we don't count that.
Like, that doesn't count.
He doesn't get any of our, you know, our good thoughts for his.
So if you see it in context, he's just making a, you know, Hypocrisy, why don't we treat them the same kind of situation, which would be perfectly legitimate.
It's a reasonable political comment to say that one person's tragedy is being highlighted and another one's is being mocked, literally mocked.
You know, the president's brother dying was a subject of mockery, literally.
And is it fair to point that out, that it's being treated differently?
No, it's the most common thing in news punditry, is to point out hypocrisy.
It's not very persuasive, but it's always part of the general texture of this stuff.
So if you look at the tweets, the tweets will say the first part, we're supposed to feel sorry for Biden because he lost his wife and children, and then they leave out the part where he puts it in context, which would not have bothered you.
90% of the people who see the tweet or the headline will never read the story.
Because it's one of those stories where you think the headline is the story.
don't you see quite often sorry I've got to get rid of a troll here goodbye alright so I tweeted after Biden's speech that Biden's darkened devices speech filled with anger and lies is a national embarrassment.
Now part of the fun of that tweet is that I wanted to show you that there are some words that can be applied to anybody.
So I took words that are normally applied to Trump by his critics.
I simply just used the same kind of words and applied them to Biden, and you could see that they fit.
So if you think that these words say something about the candidate, you'd be wrong.
Because if you have words that fit every candidate, you're not saying anything.
You're not saying anything.
And listen to this. This could literally fit any Republican, any Democrat, They give a speech, they say some good things, some bad things about the country, and then you as the critic come in later and say, it was a dark and divisive speech filled with anger and lies.
It's a national embarrassment.
Couldn't you make that fit for just about any candidate giving any speech?
Yes. So I made a fit to Biden, and you can see that when they make these same words fit the president, do they fit?
Well, in their view of the world, yes.
But if you don't understand that these same words would fit every candidate for every speech, with some exception, there'd be probably some candidate who says nothing but unicorns and rainbows, but it's uncommon.
Generally, a politician is going to complain about what's wrong before saying why they're the one that can fix it.
So as long as you've got that complaining about what's wrong, you can always say it's dark and divisive.
It fits every time. Here's another funny thing that I thought about last night.
So some of you saw my rant about the fine people hoax, and it made quite a bit of news because there were lots of other people who were making similar comments and amplifying each other.
So it should have been one of the biggest things that trended on Twitter yesterday, the fine people hoax.
Did you ever see that in the Twitter trending?
Fine people hoax.
Has that ever trended?
Because there's often a lot of talk about it.
Nope. Now maybe, maybe and I've missed it, so I will allow that I could have missed it.
But I think somebody would have pointed that out to me.
Because usually if there's anything of that much interest to me and people know it, People DM me and they tweeted at me and say, hey, hey, hey, did you see this thing?
Nobody has ever said to me, Scott, good job.
It looks like you got that find people hoax trending because I don't think you trended.
I don't think you did.
Despite all the people talking about it, one of the biggest stories, didn't trend at all.
Huh. How about that?
So here's the funny thought I had, and see if you would agree with this.
I tweeted this.
I said, by now, thousands of news people have double-checked the Fine People transcript.
Now, because there were lots of people supporting the president pushing back on Biden's claim about the Fine People hoax, clearly you would expect...
That all the news people who believed it was true would just go back to double-check that they were right because often people tweeted the transcript.
So they wouldn't have to do any work.
They would just have to be following any of these accounts that were continuously retweeting the transcript.
And maybe some of those reporters and journalists and news people, maybe they took a minute to actually read it.
And remind themselves what actually happened that day, or to watch the videos that people were tweeting.
And if they did, how many of them, certainly not all of them, but how many of the hundreds, if not thousands of news people who went and double-checked that story, how many of them had an oh-shit moment?
Now, if you think the oh-shit moment Is just about that being a hoax?
Because that's what hundreds of them would have realized.
They would have read it and they would have said, hey, every time I see this clip, they leave out the second part where Trump says in direct language, just so there'll be no confusion, I'm not talking about the white nationalists and the neo-Nazis.
They should be condemned completely, his exact words.
Now, if you leave those out, You could easily be confused by what he said before.
But because he knew that at the time, that it wasn't as clear as it could be, he put those words in.
Without being asked, he simply realized that it could be taken ambiguously, so he clarified as clearly as you can.
No, I'm not talking about the marchers.
I'm talking about people who were there just about the statue.
Now, whether or not there were people there about the statue who were fine people or not, The president clarified his assumption.
Worst case scenario, he didn't have current information about who attended.
That's it. The worst it could be is that he didn't know exactly who attended.
Do you know who else didn't know exactly who attended?
The entire news media.
Nobody knows who attended.
That is completely unknown.
I know who attended because I actually did reporting on it.
I actually talked to people who attended and said, do you support the racists?
Are you for or against the statues?
Why would you come to an event that is so clearly organized by white supremacists?
Why would you be here if you're not one of them?
And they had good reasons.
For example, some were local.
It was walking distance.
They wanted the statues to stay.
They weren't with anybody.
They were just walking distance.
It was their city. It was their park.
And so there was nothing to stop them from walking there.
So they thought they'd walk over there, take a look, maybe voice their opinion about keeping the statues.
And I asked them, well, do you agree with the racist?
Hell no! I'm not a racist.
I don't agree with the racist.
I just live nearby. I heard there was going to be a thing about the statues.
I didn't see any posters.
It was in the news.
My friends told me there was a thing about the statue.
Was there anybody who told me I couldn't go?
Did somebody say, oh, wait, no, this is only for the white supremacists.
You're not allowed to go.
You're not allowed to walk two blocks in this direction.
To see Antifa and white supremacists getting in a fight.
I've told you this before.
If I ever hear that Antifa and white supremacists are going to have a protest and a counter-protest in my town, I would walk five miles to watch that stuff.
Because I would like watching them beat each other up.
It's the only time you can watch a fight while hoping for everybody to lose.
It's a very rare thing.
And So there were real people there, and one of the people I talked to was Jewish.
He had a Jewish heritage.
I don't know what his practice was, but Jewish heritage.
Do you think a guy with Jewish heritage went to the Charlottesville event, and he was in favor of keeping the statues for historical reasons, or free speech reasons?
I don't know. He had his own reasons. But he obviously disavowed the racists because the racists were saying things about him.
He was one of the people that the racists were against, but he was just there for his own reasons.
And he knew that some rough people had organized it, but he said to himself quite reasonably, am I not allowed to go?
Stop texting me when you know I'm on Periscope.
Alright. So anyway, the press did not talk to anybody, but I did.
And so I have some idea what happened there.
Now, how many people are waking up to this thought, oh wow, this was a hoax all the time, because they looked at the transcript and realized it was a hoax.
But that's not the fun part.
Somebody says, how did I know he was a Jew?
He told me. Do you think I tested his DNA or something?
No, he told me. Now, if you're assuming that he lied to me, I suppose anything's possible.
But keep in mind, I talked to several people who were also representing several other people that they went with.
So just the people I talked to, We're aware of or went with, I don't know, maybe 20 or so people that I'm pretty reasonably sure had the characteristic of fine people and they were not racist.
Although I disagree with them on statues, on anti-statue.
So here's the oh shit moment.
The oh shit moment is not the point where a Democrat realizes that the fine people hoax is a hoax.
That's the first part of the oh shit.
Do you know what the second part is?
Because until recently, it was just this nagging thing about the president that was a persistent hoax that people believed.
And that's sort of all it was.
It was bad, but that's what it was.
But recently, Biden made it the centerpiece for his campaign.
What would happen to Biden's campaign if the very centerpiece, the thing he built his entire campaign on, which is the fine people hoax, and Biden says it pretty directly, there's not much interpretation I'm putting on this at all.
Biden features it as his primary story of why the president...
It's the central theme of his campaign.
And here's the problem.
What if it's not true?
And it is not true.
But what about all the people who said, well, Biden's got a pretty good thing there, and then they looked at the transcript and realized, oh, shit.
Oh, shit. This isn't just about debunking The hoax anymore.
This is Biden's entire campaign, and it's based on something which is objectively, easily debunked.
You don't even have to wonder.
You just read the transcript.
It's right there.
In plain words.
You just have to look at it.
And then you would realize that the hoax works by cutting off the second half that clarifies what the president meant.
When he said he condemned it totally, The neo-Nazis and white nationalists.
So imagine if you're the Democrats and you've awakened to the idea that your candidate has built a foundation on something that is easily debunked.
And it's worse than that.
It's not just an ordinary bad thing.
It's something that created gigantic division in this country because it supports all the other hoax allegations.
Think of it this way.
If you had heard five allegations about somebody, doesn't matter who you're talking about, hear five allegations, And all five of the allegations are a little sketchy.
It's like somebody who this person fired, said bad things about them.
You're like, well, that's what fired people say.
Or it happened 20 years ago and he wasn't directly involved.
And you go, well, maybe it's true, but that was a long time ago and I'm not sure we could trust the people who say they heard it.
But what if one of the five things...
You knew to be true because you saw it with your own eyes.
You heard it with your own ears.
So one of the five you know to be true.
What does that make you think about the other four that were not as obviously true?
You think those are true too, don't you?
And that's what the fine people hoax did.
It made everything else that Trump has been accused of become real even without credible information because there's that one of them That's so obviously real, I heard it with my own ears.
I saw it with my own eyes.
And that's literally what people say.
They'll say it over and over again.
Don't gaslight me and tell me this didn't happen.
I watched it live!
But they didn't.
They watched the fake edit without the clarification.
So once they realize that they've been duped by that, they realize that there's an easy play to take Biden out, and I'm going to take that play.
And the play goes like this.
I am going to be such a raging asshole about this fine people hoax that I will be harder and harder to ignore.
And once I've dismantled this thing, I will have dismantled Biden at the same time.
And as I've said, this is personal.
This isn't politics. This isn't about supporting Trump.
It does that, obviously.
It's not about hurting Biden, per se.
It's about the fact that Biden has painted a target on my back and on the back of all Trump supporters with this hoax.
This is not a normal hoax.
A hoax about Russia is just about some professional campaign people and politicians allegedly did something with another country.
No, this is about targeting your citizens and I'm one of them.
Alright, I'm leaving out the cursing for this one because I didn't give a warning.
I think it's fair to curse if I give you a warning, but not if I don't.
And so that's the play.
So Joe Biden is not only a liar and an asshole, but he's perpetrating the worst hoax in American history.
It's the worst, not because it's the most untrue or anything like that, but because it targets citizens.
It divides the country.
It supports all the other bad thoughts that we have.
It's incredible. You may have seen Greg Gottfeld took on the hoax also on The Five yesterday, including taking his own network to task for not being a little more clear about the hoax nature of that story.
And of course, he was immediately attacked by Bulwark.
Have you ever heard of Bulwark?
They're some kind of very left publication that operates basically as just a hit piece.
So if you have hit pieces coming after you, you're doing something right.
They don't send hits after somebody who's not over the target, if you know what I mean.
So yesterday I had a strange experience, which was MSNBC contacted me through my publisher They asked me to be on one of their shows, one of the political newsy shows.
Now, what would you have done if you were me and MSNBC wanted to have you on the show?
They didn't say, but I assume it's because of my video about the fine people hoax, giving me an opportunity to bring that message that it's a hoax to an audience that largely wouldn't have seen it until now.
So I should take it, right?
It seems like perfect opportunity.
I've got a message.
I want to reach this audience.
That is the audience I want to reach.
No. I turned it down.
Because I'm not an idiot.
I live in the real world.
And I tweeted this to see if people could know why this was a trap.
Here's why it was a trap.
Number one, it came out of left field that this is the first time they want me on camera.
Really? The only time I've ever been on MSNBC is when I was on book tour.
And that's just sort of an automatic Booking, you know, somebody famous has a book, bring them on, see what they have to say.
But outside of the book tour process, I don't know that I've been invited to MSNBC, or if I have, not for years.
Why yesterday?
Well, I'll tell you why.
Because I was over the target, and I drew blood.
And when I made so much noise about this hoax, and specifically the way I did it, it became a little bit harder to ignore.
And so if they can't ignore me, they have to extinguish me.
And so I immediately became on the target set for people to be discredited.
Now, why would they invite the cartoonist to talk about this when they could have invited, let's say, Steve Cortez?
Somebody whose entire job, at least lately, whose entire job is talking about politics and representing the Trump worldview, has been a paid political person, pundit, whatever you want to call it, on CNN, until CNN didn't like him bringing up the fine people hoax.
Wouldn't he be the perfect person to have a credible discussion about this hoax?
Yeah, you'd be a real good choice.
Very credible. How about Joel Pollack of Breitbart?
Has written about this topic a number of times, tweets about it a number of times.
He's followed the campaigns, literally traveled with Democrats during the primaries, written books on the topic.
Completely credible voice for a worldview.
Why not invite him?
Why would you invite the cartoonist?
Well, it's obviously the Scott Baio, MyPillow move.
What you want to do is you want to take the strongest message from the side you don't like.
You want to take the strongest message and pair it with the most ridiculous messenger.
Now, when I say most ridiculous, I'm not insulting Scott Baio or Mike Lindell, the MyPillow inventor.
Both awesome people.
Who did great things in their profession.
But you know that the play was that their audience doesn't know that I've spent most of the last four years talking nothing but politics and persuasion.
And this topic of a hoax in a political realm is exactly my expertise.
Meaning I'm a trained hypnotist.
I write and talk about persuasion.
This is that. It's persuasion in the context of politics.
I'm actually the perfect person to talk to But, not to their audience.
I would be introduced as the Dilbert guy, first of all.
So they would frame me as a non-credible person, and then they'd say, why do you believe this thing that's clearly wrong?
Because we all heard it with our own ears.
And then I would give my thing, and then they would talk over me.
And then they would run out of time, and that's it.
So I would be completely discredited by not having enough time to make my point, because everything is time-limited on TV by necessity.
And here's the other trick.
Smirconish did this to me once.
So Smirconish is one of the more reasonable people on CNN. I think he's actually quite reasonable.
Been on the show a few times.
One of the times I was on his show, I agreed to be on the show, and after I had agreed, and this is key, After I'd agreed to be on, they said, oh, we're also going to have another guest at the same time who will be criticizing you.
Right? Now, as a professional, I would typically go ahead and do it just because I said I was going to do it.
It's bad for him to agree and then pull out.
In retrospect, I should have pulled down.
If I could replay it today, I would have said, oh, I had agreed to be a guest.
I had not agreed to be on a panel.
If you want a panel type of guest, maybe I could recommend somebody, you know, Steve Cortez.
He'd be perfect. Because you got to be able to get that, you know, tight little message out.
And there's some people who are really good at that.
And they're professionals. Why not get one of them?
But instead, I took it.
And of course, it went exactly the way you think.
That between the time limit, between Brickanish's questions and my critic, my point got compressed to not much of a point by the time it was over.
There isn't much, you know, counterplay.
Compare that to Sam Harris.
Who, a few years ago, invited me on his podcast.
We had different views of politics.
But Sam Harris is, A, a reasonable, credible person who was legitimately interested, in my opinion, because it was so different from his own, and yet thought it had at least enough possibility, if I could say that, that it was worth hearing.
And worth wrestling with it.
It was not time limited, not in any real way.
So I had all the give and take, all the time I wanted, as did he.
And he's a reasonable person who isn't just going to talk over me and, you know, try to use up the time or something stupid like that.
So the Sam Harris thing made perfect sense, but the TV stuff can often be a trap.
So That's my first signal that I was over the target.
I've received other signals that this is really bad for Biden.
I can't tell you exactly what I mean by that.
But here are some of the initial takes on how I plan to take Biden out of contention.
Now here's the trick. You don't want to take him completely out.
Because you want him to actually be the top of the ticket on Election Day.
You don't want Kamala Harris to be the top of the ticket because she might actually look competent or they could sell her that way.
Whereas Biden is going to be pretty degraded by Election Day.
So you want him to stay.
You just want him to be discredited completely.
Here's one way I would do it.
I would ask somebody in the press to get a comment from an Israeli official.
It could be Benjamin Netanyahu.
Could be, let's say, any Israeli diplomat, you know, from Israel.
And ask them this question.
Hey, you know, we're having this conversation about this Charlottesville thing.
Obviously, you watch American political news.
Why wouldn't they? And you saw the same event, and you saw the chanters with these tiki torches saying anti-Semitic things.
Do you think that the president...
Was referring to the marchers as the fine people.
Let's ask Israel.
Because if Israel hasn't detected any anti-Semitism, do you think you should?
Because I would propose that Israel is very good at detecting anti-Semitism.
Would we all agree with that?
Is there anybody in the world who would disagree with the statement that Israel, especially the politicians, are very good at detecting anti-Semitism.
I would say 10 out of 10.
If you were to rank their ability to identify anti-Semitism, you might say they're even over-sensitive in some situations.
That would be your opinion.
You know, their opinion would differ.
But you might even say that they're never going to undershoot the mark.
They might go a little further than you would go and say something was anti-Semitic when you thought, well, it wasn't exactly anti-Semitic, but I can see how you'd see it that way.
But would they have simply failed to notice if a president said in public that neo-Nazis and white nationalists or anybody who supported them Again, anybody who supported them.
If he had said that they were fine people, do you think Israel would have just let that go?
I think that's a good question, don't you?
Somebody should ask them to comment.
Put them on the record.
Is it true or not?
How about this?
Have you checked PolitiFact to see if the fine people hoax is true or false?
Well, I have.
And you know what PolitiFact does, right?
They've got this little true or false meter, so it's like a little graphic.
And they say something's completely true, the needle is over here, or completely false, the needle's over here.
Or sometimes, you know, it's true-ish, so they'll put the needle in the middle.
Where do you think they put the needle for the fine people hoax?
Do you think it was, you know, somewhere in the middle?
Difference of opinion? Maybe at the right or the left.
What do you think? How do you think they handled it?
This will blow your mind.
Are you ready? They omitted it.
They omitted it.
They handled the hoax, so it's a topic on PolitiFact, and they just showed the transcript.
Do you know why they just showed the transcript and left out the needle?
Because otherwise people would point to them and say, PolitiFact says it was false.
Did they say it was false?
Well, they showed you the transcript, and the transcript says it's false.
It's right there. The exact words.
I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists.
They should be condemned completely.
Those words are there.
So where's my little graphic?
You see what's happening, right?
This is not some weird conspiracy theory thinking.
Find me anything else that PolitiFact left off the image.
Find me any. Just find me one other example where they left off the little graphic.
Now, I think somebody should point that out.
Wouldn't you like to know Israel's opinion?
Wouldn't you like to know why PolitiFact is the only one they left that out?
Or there might be others, but I'd like to see those if there are.
Here's another one I'd like to see asked.
And I would like to see this in the form of a cognitive test for Joe Biden.
And the first one would go like this.
So question number one on Joe Biden's cognitive test.
I tweeted this earlier.
If you hear someone say these words, quote, I condemn totally the white nationalists and neo-Nazis.
How do you interpret that?
And there are two choices. You interpret it as Somebody has condemned those groups or to support those groups.
Now, you'd say to yourself, that's kind of an easy cognitive question because the answer is actually in the question.
If the statement is, I condemn totally white nationalists and neo-Nazis, how can you get this one wrong?
Well, Joe Biden gets it wrong, right?
This is why it's a good test for Joe Biden.
Because he can't get this one right.
He thinks that the words, I'm not talking about the white nationalists and the neo-Nazis, they should be condemned totally.
He thinks those words literally mean support for those groups.
So that's a fair test, isn't it?
How about this one?
Question number two for Joe Biden.
When the FBI... said today that, so this is something new from the FDA, a warning about using UV light externally.
It says, when the FDA said today that UVC lamps used for disinfection purposes may pose potential health and safety risks, what do they mean?
Is the FDA telling people, don't drink bleach, Or are they saying, be cautious of UVC lamps?
Which one is it?
Because Joe Biden would answer this, that they mean don't drink bleach.
Because he thinks the president once suggested drinking disinfectants, which people talk about as bleach.
So Joe Biden couldn't get this right.
He would think that the FDA was saying don't drink disinfectants.
When the FDA was talking about light, using the very word, this is actually the FDA's own word, UVC lamps for disinfection purposes.
Disinfection. It's the same word that the president used when he was talking about light.
All right. In a separate story...
Oh, here's another one.
You want to go deep into conspiracy theory?
Come with me. Come with me.
I'm going to take you deep into, holy cow, what's going on territory.
Are you ready? First of all, ask the press to interview or to put in a call for anyone to contact them and say, I was at the Charlottesville event and I'm not a racist, but I was just there for my own purposes, and then explain why they would go to such an event.
So the press could do that, right?
How hard would it be for ABC, CNN, MSNBC, to just say, hey, if you were there and you think you are one of those fine people, can you contact us?
We'd like to get you on record.
Maybe verify if you're such a fine person or not.
How hard would it be to do that?
It wouldn't be hard because I did that.
That's how I interviewed people in the fine people category.
I just said I'm open to talking to them and they contacted me on Twitter.
It was that easy. One tweet, all the information they need about who went there.
But are you ready to go darker?
Do you want to go down a level?
Do you know those pictures you saw of the marchers with the tiki torches?
Did you say to yourself, those don't look like the racists I'm used to seeing?
Did you ever have that thought?
Because they seemed young and strong and, dare I say, Aryan.
And they looked, because of what they were chanting, and because of the tiki tortures, and because it was at night, and because they had a certain look about them as being, shall we say, middle class or higher, possibly high income.
They even looked like they might have gone to prep schools.
They looked...
Like exactly the people that would scare the shit out of you if there were many of them.
In other words, if you saw, let me put it this way, you've seen lots of video and pictures of, let's say, the KKK gathering to do an event.
Picture in your mind what the people who showed up who were avowed racists, what do they look like?
Get that image in your mind.
All right? Do they look like really well-dressed preppies who are 25-ish or under, have good clean haircuts, and they look like they just came out of a fashion catalog?
Do they look like that?
Have you ever seen a group of racists in the United States who looked exactly like Hitler youth?
Huh. What if I taught you about things that are a little bit too...
On the nose? A little bit too on the nose?
Now let me be as clear as I can, because this is the part that will be taken out of context.
I'm sure there were real racists at an event organized by real racists.
Okay, so there's no question there were real racists there.
One of them killed Heather Heyer with a car.
So, nobody's arguing whether there were real racists in attendance, but what is it about real racists that they all seem to have in common?
Maybe not 100%, but largely as an average.
They're not really photogenic, are they?
They're not too photogenic.
So, if you're going to have a rally and your intention Was to just say, promote your point of view.
How would you do it?
Well, I think you'd do it exactly the way the KKK does it.
They would, you know, legally, if possible, get in an event to have a protest or an event.
They would gather, it would be a scraggly bunch of people, and they would have their signs and maybe they'd say some stuff.
That's how you do it.
Is the KKK trying to scare the shit out of you?
Are they? Because they are scary in the sense that if there were more of them, it would be an even bigger problem.
But they don't seem to be trying to scare you.
Just fact check me on that.
Except for Charlottesville, have there been other events that are these KKK, white nationals, whatever, were they ever trying to scare you?
Because the Charlottesville thing is designed specifically to scare you.
Why would they do that?
What would be the point of making themselves look scary?
Because how does that help them?
Did it help the people with the tiki torches to be especially scary looking?
Or would it have been enough to just gather and march and Say their little slogans.
So here's the thing.
Here's my challenge to the press.
Hey press, see if you can find one of the people with the tiki torches because we have tons of video, tons of photographs.
We know exactly what they look like.
They didn't wear masks.
How come you've never seen Somebody says fact check equals you are wrong.
Why have we never seen an interview of one of those people with the torches?
Because you know what was interesting about them is they didn't wear masks or hoods.
What kind of people would walk in front of hundreds of cameras carrying a tiki torch and saying something that would ruin the rest of their life in the United States?
Ed would know that. Certainly would know it.
Now when you see the fringy KKK people marching, And you say to yourself, hey, you know, they're ruining their lives too because people can see you.
We know who you are.
Well, what kind of lives did they have in the first place, right?
Is the group of the 12 KKK people who show up at some park, were they killing it in life?
Was one of them a CEO of a major company?
Not so much, right?
They don't look like a group that's got a lot to lose.
But the people marching in Charlottesville were young, Probably educated, good looking.
They had a lot to lose.
A lot to lose.
So here's the thing.
Why have we never seen an interview with one of those Tiki Torch people?
Does that raise some questions about the press?
That nobody in the press has found even one Tiki Torch person to just put on the stage and Put on camera and say, look, what the heck were you thinking with this Tiki Torch stuff?
Remember, these were people who did this in public with no masks, walking by hundreds of cameras as well as all the news crews.
They were trying to be seen with their actual faces.
You think you can't find one of those people who would go on TV and say the same thing that they were apparently willing to say in public, in cameras?
How about that? I see people mentioning the Proud Boys in the comments.
They didn't look like the Proud Boys.
So, if you've seen the Proud Boys, they do have a distinctive look.
I'm not sure how to describe it, but there's definitely a look to the Proud Boys, and it wasn't that.
It didn't look like it at all.
Now, I'm not going to say that they were paid actors or crisis actors.
I'm just going to put the question out there.
Have you ever seen a situation Where there would be so many people involved in one of the biggest stories of the year, and nobody has talked to, A, any of the people who would claim to be fine people who attended.
Nobody. No major publication.
Couldn't find anybody. I found several with no effort whatsoever.
But the major publications.
No interest in actually talking to anybody who attended.
Interesting, isn't it? I think the New York Times did interview a few people when it was fresh, when they were actually there.
But I don't think anybody has talked to anybody after the fact.
And it would be easy to find them.
So just ask yourself, what kind of a world do you live in?
And is the Charlottesville Fine People hoax?
Let me leave you with this final thought.
Given what you saw, do you think it was domestic?
Do you think that only people from the United States...
Who only have the interests of the United States, which might be different than your view.
But do you think it was only citizens of the United States who were the only ones involved with the Charlottesville tiki torch carriers?
Do you think so? Because it feels unlikely to me.
Because it was a little bit too on the nose.
A little bit too camera ready.
Have you noticed that the KKK and the white nationalists and the neo-Nazis don't really have a track record before then or after then of doing camera-ready staged events?
Have you noticed that they don't seem to have that capability?
But that day they had that capability.
Not only did they have the capability, but they had it really, really strongly.
Do you think that all came from just some Americans?
And if Joe Biden is using the Charlottesville hoax as his main campaign theme, could it be said that Joe Biden is outside that sphere of influence?
Is Joe Biden siding with a foreign adversary?
Is there any foreign adversary who would want an event like a tiki torch carrying people?
Is there any foreign adversary who might want to see that in the United States?
So ask yourself if Joe Biden is on the side of the United States on that topic, or maybe on the side of somebody else.
Now, let me say this as clear as possible.
I don't know what was up with those people.
And I don't know why nobody's talked to them.
But it would be easy to debunk everything that I'm suggesting is possible.
And let me be as clear as I can with my language.
I'm always suggesting things that are possible.
I'm not suggesting things that I know to happen.
It's not a specific claim.
I'm just saying that the news hasn't come close to doing the news business on this topic.
Because the news business would really require Then to dig in a little bit with those Tiki Torch guys.
Why was this one so camera ready?
And then also to dig in and find out if there were some fine people there.
Anybody that actually was a decent person who attended the event and did not support the races.
Somebody says...
So the trolls are coming for me.
So what you should see today...
If what I'm saying is as damaging as it is, it is that damaging.
Because Biden made the gigantic strategic mistake, maybe the mistake, possibly the biggest mistake I've ever seen a politician ever make, is that he put a focus of his campaign on an easily disprovable hoax.
Now, that might be the biggest mistake anybody's made.
And he has, on top of that, made the entire thrust of his proposition of why he should replace Trump, the entire thrust of it is that he's the one with good character and good judgment.
But he based his campaign on a hoax that's easily debunked.
That shows that he's either really stupid, right?
Right? Or he's pure evil.
Because if he's pushing this just for political purposes, and he knows it's not true, he's dividing the country in the worst possible way right in front of you, and that is completely disqualifying.
But if he literally doesn't know that it didn't happen the way he describes it, if he doesn't know, then he's far too stupid to be president.
And I don't think there's another possibility that The Democrats would say, well, the other possibility is it really happened.
No. Read the transcript.
It didn't happen. Neither did the disinfectant story.
Possibly the biggest blunder of any politician running for president of all time.
You could argue that Dukakis getting in the tank was pretty bad.
Maybe George Bush the senior saying, read my lips, no new taxes.
Those were bad. But the fine people hoax, I think it beats them because it's going to take Biden out of the election.
And I'm going to see to that personally, but not until...
Not until I get rid of this guy.
Oh, where was he?
Ah, he disappeared. All right.
Somebody says that his speechwriters know the truth.
I don't know.
Don't really know.
Somebody says the tiki torches are part of the color revolutions.
I don't know what that is. I'm looking at your comments to see if I'm hitting or missing on this because your feedback tells me if I'm in the zone or not.
Yeah, so people think that maybe Biden is too out of it to even know.
You know, the fact that he's being praised for not being insane is crazy.
Export Selection