All Episodes
Aug. 27, 2020 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
55:29
Episode 1105 Scott Adams: RNC Night Three, Video HOAXES, Hurricanes and Persuasion, Strategy and Riots

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: RNC Day 3 review Jack Brewer debunked the "Fine People" HOAX Kenosha shooting details Idolizing criminals and mocking good role models Anderson Cooper and the "drinking bleach" HOAX 4 Steps: How the FAKE NEWS creates their HOAXES ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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.
It's time.
It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams.
The best time of the day.
Yeah, it is.
And all you need to enjoy this incredible experience is not much, really.
All it takes is a cup or a mug or a glass of tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I'm partial to coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine to the day, the thing that makes everything better, except riots, apparently.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go! No, I was wrong.
It did make the riots a little bit better.
You might not notice it with all the fake news, but I'm pretty sure there was a benefit there.
Well, I was at first happy to hear the report that there were no deaths from Hurricane Laura, but the update is there is a 14-year-old who lost his life.
So that is tragic.
And while not downplaying the loss of life...
It is remarkable that there was that little bit, that the loss of life was small.
And part of the solution for that might be we're getting smarter, maybe we just have better communication.
Part of it was that it was predicted to be bigger than it was, so that's good news.
But I saw this bit of persuasion coming out of the local government trying to get people to evacuate.
And listen to how good this persuasion is.
This is as good as you can persuade.
They announced, before the waters came to try to get everybody to leave, they said, quote, please evacuate, and if you choose to stay and we can't get to you, write your name, address, and social security number, and next of kin, And put it in a Ziploc bag in your pocket, praying that it does not come to this.
Oh my God, that's good!
In fact, they should use this, the same exact line, for every single situation where you're trying to get people to evacuate.
Because I've taught you that the strongest form of persuasion is fear.
So if you can make somebody afraid of something, there's nothing that's as good as that.
It might be used in a bad way, but there's nothing as effective as that as scaring people.
But if you're going to scare people, you want to make it visual.
This is really visual.
You can imagine the baggie.
You can imagine yourself filling it out.
You can imagine putting it in your pocket because you think, well, how would I attach it to myself, put it in my pocket?
Very visual. It makes you deal with the question of how you would do it.
Which makes you think past the sale.
The sale is doing it, and you're thinking about how to do it.
Do I have a baggie?
Would that be good enough?
Whose name would I put on it?
Thinking past the sale, fear, visual, and then they put it in a story.
You could actually see the movie of this part of your life where you're getting the baggie, you're filling it out, you're putting it in your pocket, and here's the really powerful part.
You can see your own lifeless body being discovered and they find the baggie in your pocket.
Try to top that.
Take the best persuader in the history of persuaders.
Try to top that.
You can't. That's as good as you can persuade.
There's nothing left, you know, there's no money left on the table with this one.
This is putting it all out there.
Now, I don't know if the person who came up with this idea was trying to persuade an actually understood technique, or it could be that this was simply a good idea, and it is a good idea, but it also has a persuasive element.
So I'd be very curious Whoever came up with this framing, if they had any actual training in persuasion, because if they hit this by accident, you know, if you stumbled across something this powerful, just randomly, I mean, it's possible, but I'd be surprised.
I think there's somebody who's got some skill, some serious skill, who came up with that.
All right. As you've noticed, the mainstream mess...
The mainstream press, which is sort of a mainstream mess, is realizing that the poll numbers are plunging for Biden.
The more violence there is, in the Midwest especially, that's the last place you'd want to have any violence because those are the battleground states for the election.
And I think Politico and CNN and you're seeing some other people say, Hey, wait a minute.
I don't think this rioting, slash protesting, slash looting, I don't think this is working in our favor.
And by the way, a public service announcement.
If I ever talk in a generality, such as there were looters in the city or there were some bad eggs, You should be smart enough to translate that into your head.
Try to follow along, because I know my followers are smarter than the average.
You should translate that into your head into, he doesn't mean every single person.
Might not even mean most of them.
I might be talking about just the bad eggs and the bunch.
You should be able to handle the fact that when people use generalities that way, They don't really mean every person.
It doesn't mean every person when I say it.
It doesn't mean every person when you say it.
It doesn't mean every single person when anybody says it.
So if you're going to be that idiot who says, oh, he says every single person.
Oh, every single person there was violent.
Oh, that's right, Scott.
Sure, every single person.
That is a case of using sarcasm instead of reasons, mixed with a little intentional bad reading comprehension.
Here's the way the fake news is spinning Tucker Carlson's show last night.
So Tucker said, and I'll paraphrase, but Tucker was essentially saying that nobody should be surprised that That a vigilante kind of a shooting, or really just violence in general, came out of these protests slash looting slash riots.
Again, not every person was rioting.
Not every single person was looting.
Some of them were good.
Just in case there's anybody new to my periscopes who needed that little extra clarification.
Every once in a while a Biden supporter floats in here not knowing what they're going to get.
I like to make sure that they know what they're getting.
So, all right, so Tucker makes the completely ordinary, obvious, clearly justifiable, non-provocative, totally non-provocative statement that if you let this situation go on, it's very predictable that it turns into two sides and at least one of them is going to have guns.
Probably both. As we saw in Kenosha, there were guns on both sides.
Only one of them fired, it turns out.
So how controversial is it to say that it's predictable where this ends?
That's not predictable.
That's not controversial at all.
In fact, I think Tucker said something that 100% of people would agree with.
How can you be provocative saying things that everybody agrees with and is obvious?
That if you allow this chaos to continue, the obvious conclusion is people getting killed.
Obviously. That's not even a political statement.
That's just a statement of duh.
So how did the bad people in the fake news business spin it?
Well, here we have somebody from Politico.
Blake Hounchel is the editorial director of the website Politico.
And he says, quote, Vigilante violence was always one of my greatest worries about the present moment, tweeted Blake Hasnell.
Now keep in mind, he just completely agreed with Tucker Carlson because he said vigilante violence was always my greatest worry, meaning it was predictable.
Predictable. That's what Tucker said.
So now he's completely agreed with Tucker, so we're done, right?
There's nothing else to say.
He just agreed with what Tucker said.
Oh no, he continues.
And he goes, talking about Tucker, he goes, and here we have a prominent TV host, a man who had the president's ear excusing it, rationalizing it.
No, nothing like that happened.
It's not rationalizing something to predict it, because you know who else predicted it?
The guy who's criticizing Tucker Carlson.
It's the most ridiculous criticism in the world.
He agrees with them, and then he criticizes them, without any awareness that they have the same opinion.
Incredible! Is he the only one who is this blind to the obvious?
No. Turns out that Nicole Hannah-Jones Who is a New York Times Magazine reporter who won the Pulitzer Prize for her work on the 1619 Project, which you've heard of.
What was her opinion of Tucker's point of view?
Quote, he just justified murder.
No. Nothing like that happened.
Nobody justified murder.
Not Tucker.
Not his listeners.
Not anybody. Nothing even remotely like that happened.
How about Max Boot, a conservative Washington Post columnist?
You can trust a conservative Washington Post columnist, can't you?
Wait, he's a conservative?
But he tweeted that Carlson was, quote, inciting violence and abetting terrorism.
Was he? Because the video shows that the terrorists are the ones who were chasing and trying to physically hurt, if not kill, the person who ended up shooting in self-defense.
More on that in a minute.
But no, it wasn't anything like that.
He was just predicting, as I have.
I have also predicted it, but I don't encourage it.
It's just obvious it's going to happen, and there's nothing else that could happen.
I'll go further than any of them, which is to say it's guaranteed to happen.
You can't change that with your preference.
Tucker Carlson can't change the course of events by wishing it wouldn't happen.
He could even encourage it not to happen.
He could come out strongly against it happening.
It wouldn't make any difference. It wouldn't make any difference.
Because the people who are doing stuff are not watching Tucker Carlson and saying, well, there you go.
I'd better not do this thing I was going to do.
That's not a thing.
Maybe you could change the minds of some people who are on the fence in some weird situations.
But in general, it's not going to move the needle at all.
Alright, so that part is insane.
Let's talk about the RNC convention, night three.
I would say it was another solid performance, and I think everybody agreed.
I think the Democrats agreed.
I think the Republicans agreed.
And I would go even further than to say it was solid.
There were some standout, really, star turns.
I thought Jack Brewer...
Because it's 2020 and you have to specify these things.
Can we get to the point in history where if you have the first black female inspector general of the post office, I don't know, maybe that's already happened, that we don't make it a story that it's the first black female who has got this particular job?
Can't we get past that?
Can't we get to the point where we say, why wouldn't she get the job?
Can't we get to the point where we say, we're glad it's happening, but why is it news?
Is there somebody on the other side of this who doesn't think that, in my hypothetical example, is there someone who doesn't think a black woman can get a good job when all evidence clearly shows that they're succeeding at the highest levels, especially in Congress?
They're killing it in Congress.
So why do we make this news?
I feel like we've reached the point where talking about it makes it worse.
You know, if you go back 20 years or even 10 years, I suppose, yeah, it's worth mentioning.
It's definitely worth mentioning if you get the first, let's say, whatever group for president or vice president, even for Congress.
I think that that's fair to point out somebody getting a powerful position.
But at some point, we just have to stop calling out people's race for the new story.
It just needs to be less important, and we're all going to be better off, I think.
Both for the good news and the bad news.
Anyway, Jack Brewer, African-American man, was very pro-Trump, and the part that stood out, aside from the fact that he's really good on camera, I mean, you know there's some people who you put them on camera and they just disappear?
And then there are other people who just not only light up the screen, but they seem to enter your space.
That's what Trump does.
Trump doesn't just light up the screen when you're watching him.
He's in your house.
I mean, he gets off the screen.
He gets in your bones.
He's in your DNA. And, you know, I'm not sure that you can...
You can't really coach somebody to do that, I don't think.
You can make somebody better at communicating.
But whatever that thing is that Trump has that makes him light up the screen and then leave the screen and enter your house, that just comes along once every who knows.
But Jack Brewer has a strong version of that thing, that charisma, that natural star power, I guess you'd call it.
And it was interesting to watch that.
But the point that I was most interested in is that he directly debunked the fine people hoax.
Does it matter that he is a black man who debunked the fine people hoax?
Yeah, it matters. It matters a lot.
I had challenged anybody who believes this hoax to find me anybody in leadership in Israel who thinks it was true, under the theory that if Israel doesn't think that the president was praising these people who are anti-Semitic, if Israel didn't see it, they've got pretty good filters on this stuff.
I don't think they'd let it go.
At the very least, they would have said, hey, could you clarify this?
We're worried that you are supporting them.
Anything like that?
Anything like that?
No. Because Israel is not taken in by the fake news that so many of us are.
So, watching a black man...
Who had tremendous, just, star power.
Really impressive. To watch him light up the screen, and to some extent, not quite a President Trump level, but come into your life, you know, he leaves his screen as well.
To see him debunk that was useful, but what happened?
The fake news immediately fact-checked him.
They fact-checked him incorrectly and said, no, he got that wrong.
There's just nothing you can do if the fake news has a news silo, which they do, and nobody gets outside of that so they don't see the other argument.
They can just fact check it.
So CNN ran much or most of the RNC convention on their network.
So if you're wondering why the polls are moving, let me just put this idea in your head and you're going to laugh That you haven't seen somebody say this yet.
Unless you have. Maybe somebody said this.
I haven't seen it. Think about this.
CNN carrying the Republican convention was the first time a lot of CNN viewers had seen actual news.
Meaning the other side of the story.
They've seen a version filtered through the fake news messaging, but they've never even heard the other argument.
They've never seen a picture of Republicans looking like they have empathy.
I don't think people knew there were black Republicans.
I mean, of course they knew on some level, but I don't think that they knew that there were black Republicans who are so powerful that we're talking about them as the next president.
If you were a Democrat who had only watched the fake news and you'd never seen any Republican messaging, counter-messaging, Any of the strengths?
If you've never seen any of that, what did you think when Tim Scott got up there and gave his incredible speech?
Did you say to yourself, who's he?
Probably. You probably said, who's he?
I didn't know there were any black Republicans.
And when Jack...
When Jack Brewer was talking last night, how many people said, wait a minute, why is a black guy saying that the fine people thing was a hoax?
Do you think it at least caused some curiosity in people saying, hmm, I wonder why that would happen?
Because it would be a strange thing for him to claim in public if it could be so easily...
Disproven by just looking at the transcript.
Of course, if you do look at the transcript, you'll see it's completely right.
Most people only see the first part that's misleading.
They don't read the second part of the transcript that clarifies.
Anyway, CNN made the mistake of accidentally allowing their people to see Republican messaging for the first time.
What should be the predictable outcome of that?
The predictable outcome of that should be a little bit of movement on the polls.
It should be. Now, I don't know that it works the other way, because Fox News can cover the Democratic Convention, and almost everything that conservatives hear From the Democrats is things that they already know.
Now, they may know it's false or they may know it's true, but they know the story and they know the counter to it, if there is one.
So you should expect that if both networks carry both conventions, that one would get a significant bump in the polls and one would not.
Because one is giving no new information to the public And one is giving a lot of new information to the public, like a whole different world you didn't think was there.
It's like, uh, really?
Seriously? Are you telling me that President Trump did all of these things that are conspicuously designed to be good for the black voters in this country?
Did they know that?
Well, they know it now, if they watch the convention, so it should make a difference.
I thought it was very interesting and very smart That Trump tweeted a thank you to CNN for carrying most of the RNC. And there was no joke in it.
Just sort of hold this in your head.
Trump tweeted a thank you to CNN with no joke.
Obviously, he was doing it for persuasion purposes.
I've told you that one of the most powerful persuasion things you can do is if somebody is your critic, you go as hard as you can against them while they're being a critic.
But the moment they say something that's not critical, you should go just as hard in the other direction to praise them and thank them and call it out as good behavior.
That's good persuasion.
Trump does that better than anybody.
There's nobody in the public sphere who has ever done that specific trick of persuasion as perfectly as he does.
He will try to bury you if you're a critic, but the moment you're on his side, it doesn't matter what you do.
It doesn't matter if you're Q. It doesn't matter what you are.
If you're on his side, Thank you.
I'm glad you support America.
So that is good persuasion.
It's, you know, obviously persuasion, but it's good persuasion.
So we learned a bit about the shooter in Kenosha.
So as you know, the 17-year-old with the AR shot and killed two white people and injured a third.
Again, it's important that they're all white, the shooter and the people who got shot.
It shouldn't be important, but it's 2020, so I have to throw that in there.
It's just disgusting that mentioning people's ethnicity in a news story should matter.
But it does.
It does in this case.
Here's what we know about them.
This is Andy Ngo.
If you're not following him, his last name is spelled N-G-O. He's got pretty much all of the useful information about these protests and what comes out of them.
He reported this morning that one of them was a 36-year-old.
He's the first one who shot a And the video shows him chasing after the shooter and throwing something at him.
In other words, attacking him with the risk of grievous bodily harm.
And if he got shot for that, then of course we're still in fog of war, but that's what it looks like.
That was self-defense.
Turns out that the guy he shot was also, coincidentally, a registered sex offender for a sex crime involving a minor.
That's good context to know, isn't it?
How about the next one?
The other one was 26 and he was shot.
And he was filmed chasing down the teen who did the shooting and hitting that teen when he was on the ground with a skateboard.
Now, that was, again, risk of, not risk of, but grievous bodily harm.
He actually hit him.
And then the teen shot him dead.
The person who got shot dead has a criminal history that includes charges of battery and repeat domestic abuse.
So far, the kid with a gun shot a registered sex offender and somebody with repeat domestic abuse allegations.
Doesn't mean they were guilty.
They're allegations.
The third person who was shot, and this one survived, he was 26, and he's a member of the People's Revolution movement.
He was photographed with a gun in his hand.
I don't know if that was real, but it looked like it.
He was filmed chasing after the teen with a pistol.
And he was shot at close range in the upper arm.
Turns out he also has a criminal record that includes being intoxicated and armed with a gun.
So, I said quite clearly that I don't care about them.
I don't care about any of the white men, because again, it's 2020, so in order to make a statement about anything, you've got to specify their ethnicity and their race.
So I will. Those are the rules.
I don't care about those white guys.
Somebody said the third guy is unarmed.
I was going to make that joke, but it sounded a little too cruel.
But I don't mind mentioning it when you did.
I don't care about them.
And let me say it as directly as possible.
Their lives don't matter to me.
Their lives don't matter.
Because they made choices that made them worthy of being shot.
And it wouldn't matter who it was.
It doesn't matter that they're white men or men or women or anything.
If they made choices that earned them getting shot, and that looks like what happened, as far as we know.
I mean, it could change if we learn something else.
But if they made those choices, I don't care about them.
I don't care about them at all.
To me, their lives don't matter.
Now, I will also extend this concept to anyone who No matter their race or ethnicity or gender or age or religion, to anyone who resists arrest and gets shot, even if the police acted inappropriately, I don't care about them.
Their lives literally don't matter to me.
Now, it's hard to say that in public.
And again, I'm not talking about black lives or white lives or blue lives or any other specific person.
Anybody who makes the choice to resist arrest doesn't matter to me.
I totally care about their families because there's a lot of pain that's left behind.
That's bad. I care about anybody who gets mistakenly blamed for something because they get caught up in the political moment of 2020.
I feel bad for them.
And certainly if anybody made a mistake or could have done something better, that needs to be addressed.
You know, I'm not giving police some kind of a pass to shoo people.
They need to do it right, and if there's any way we could do it more right, I'm all for it.
I just think that as a principle, if you allow people to resist arrest without consequence, and without serious consequence, including death, if you allow that to be your new standard, that resisting arrest can be okay, you have created the situation that will destroy civilization itself.
Because unfortunately, nobody's figured out how to have a civilization Without some kind of law enforcement, and you can't have law enforcement if people are allowed to walk away from the arrest, or if they're allowed to go pick up a weapon during the middle of an arrest.
Can you let somebody go into their car and pick up their weapon while the arrest is in progress?
I don't think so.
And let me say as clearly as possible, I don't care about that guy who got shot reaching for his knife.
I don't care about him.
I really don't. And it has nothing to do with being black or being white.
It has nothing to do with that.
He made choices that if he got his way and his supporters got their way, resisting arrest would be, as a de facto kind of real-world case, resisting arrest would be legalized effectively if you could do it without consequence.
And I'd say in that case...
I just don't care about it.
So I couldn't say that until there were some serious white people who got killed that I could say I don't care about too, because otherwise it gets misconstrued.
But there it was.
All right. Now, I've been joking slash not joking about Biden's satanic influences, meaning that there are a lot of satanic coincidences about Joe Biden.
That he lives underground like Satan.
That Lucifer's name is bringer of light.
And that's literally what Biden announced he would do.
He would bring light. There's the fact that Kamala Harris, both are six letters.
Kamala, six. Harris, six.
Vice President of the United States is six.
So he's got the 666 thing going for his Vice President.
But This little bit sort of tells it to you all.
One of my trolls or my critics online has been posting a picture of my deceased stepson who died of a fentanyl overdose in 2018 as a comment no matter what I'm commenting on.
And then he says it's my fault that my stepson died.
I accept that that's true.
I would never argue with that.
In the sense that, was there anything I could have done in hindsight that would have prevented it?
And the answer is always yes.
If you have someone in your family who commits suicide, yeah, there was something you could do.
You could have been in their room all the time.
You could have tried harder, whatever.
So it's not like I disagree with the point that anybody who has a loss in the family They could have done something different, but it's the real world.
People don't know until hindsight makes us all smart how much they could have done or should have done under the circumstances.
But I don't disagree to the point that somebody could have done more, and that somebody in this case was me.
But when you see the degree of evil happening, That it takes for this person to do that, and it's repeated.
It's not once. It's somebody who I block them, they create a new troll account, they do it on the next comment, etc.
But that feels closer to satanic.
I'm not a believer, but just in terms of categorizing it, it feels closer to satanic than it does to somebody who's just a troll.
But I'll leave that to you.
The The RNC last night made, and for the last three days, they've made a number of positive comments about school choice.
But I think that they have failed in their messaging.
So even though the Republicans have fairly consistently said, hey, school choice will help you, there's a part they leave out that makes their preference for school choice inert.
In other words, it's the most powerful thing or could be.
It should be the most powerful thing that they say.
But the way they say it turns it from potentially the most powerful thing they could say to absolutely nothing.
And here's the problem.
When you simply say this, it's not enough.
And this is what they do. They say, we want more school choice because, you know, competition is good and then, you know, Parents can raise their children the way they want.
It's freedom. It's right.
They say that sort of thing.
That has no persuasive power, except to Republicans, which is not good enough if you're running for election.
What they should say, and they're leaving out, and it must be intentional, is Is that the cause of not being able to have this freedom of education, if you will, is the teachers' unions.
Specifically the teachers' unions.
If you unpair those two ideas, and then you unpair it from systemic racism, you've lost all your persuasive juice.
Alright? The way to make it persuasive is to say, systemic racism, the biggest cause of it, and it's real, If you're still arguing that systemic racism doesn't exist because you're a Republican and you don't want it to exist, it's a losing argument.
And the reason it's a losing argument is A, it totally exists.
It may not be in the form and type that other people are talking about it, but obviously it exists.
Any system will be optimized for some types of people and sub-optimized for other types.
Doesn't mean anybody did it intentionally.
Doesn't mean it's anybody's fault per se.
But it is something that needs to be addressed.
And certainly there is a ripple from slavery and other effects that clearly have an effect.
But I would say that the biggest lever for fixing that, and I think everybody would like to fix it if it's fixable, in the sense of giving everybody a fair shot, because anything you fix for the black community, as is often said, and it's one of the strongest points, is going to help everybody.
It's going to help everybody.
There is no way to give the black community a boost That doesn't help everybody, unless you're just transferring money, which is sort of the dumb way to do it.
But if you were to state quite accurately that the teachers' unions are the primary cause of locking the black community into the lower socioeconomic grouping, that's just true. That's demonstrably, obviously, observably true.
They're doing literally that by being the strongest force.
They're a huge political force.
And the reason they're a big political force is there are so many teachers.
Lots of teachers means lots of money from dues.
Lots of money from dues means you can do things beyond what the school is doing at the moment, beyond the negotiating for the teachers.
You can use that money, a lot of it, to influence politics, and they do.
And they have so much money, because there are so many teachers, that they can actually determine local politicians who get selected, and then they can just cement their power, and they can lock in systemic racism.
And... And school choice is the primary way that anybody's ever thought of.
If somebody comes up with a better idea, I'm open to that.
But in terms of ideas that people actually have, like real suggestions that are actually something you could do something about, getting rid of the power of the teachers' unions and moving more towards school choice is the thing, the number one thing, that the black community needs To get a fair shake.
Because they're not. Anybody who says that you're getting a fair shake when you're black, especially if you're living in some urban place that's not so good, anybody who thinks that they're getting a fair shake, you're not paying attention.
Because not only are they not getting a fair shake, but anybody who's in the same socioeconomic group also not getting a fair shake.
And it's because of the teachers' unions.
So, when the Republicans leave that out, they also guarantee that their message is weak.
I don't know why they do it, honestly.
Alright. So, here's what else.
I would say, also, that nobody succeeds without a good strategy.
Would you agree that the Asian Americans have a good strategy as a group?
Again, when you talk about a group, you're not talking about every single person in the group.
I'm hoping you're adults enough to know that.
But isn't it true that the Asian American community has a strategy, which is stay out of trouble, legal trouble especially, stay out of trouble, and emphasize education?
Right? And it seems to work because they've done unusually well.
Would you say that wealthy white people also have a strategy that works?
Well, of course, they have an advantage if they're coming from wealth, but they also hear good strategies just by being around it.
They can observe what works and what doesn't because they're around success.
If you've never been around success, you kind of don't know what it looks like.
It has to be personal.
You have to know somebody who is successful.
It's not really good to just watch them on TV or read a book about a successful person.
If you've not met one, it's a real disadvantage.
I mean, a serious disadvantage.
And I've often said that one of the biggest strategic mistakes, and it's just one of them, is if you're idolizing criminals, if they are your heroes, literally criminals, And you're de-emphasizing people who are doing it right and succeeding, then you can't really succeed.
I don't know that there's a culture who has ever idolized or put most of their, let's say, identity into a criminal element that has succeeded.
Now, you see this in two ways, and I get this from...
from leaders in the black community tell me this, right?
So the next thing I say is not my white guy interpretation of anything because, again, it's always a mistake to think you can put yourself in somebody else's head if they have a really different situation.
But black leaders will tell you One of the problems is that if you're black and young, especially if you don't have a father who's doing well, that they're looking for role models, and the people who are doing the best in a bad situation might be drug dealers.
So if the only people who seem to be living some kind of a high-quality life are literally criminals, that's a bad strategy.
You need to replace that That role model mental situation with some other kind of positive role model.
You just can't. There's nothing that can be fixed if you don't get that first.
That's sort of like starting place, right?
Now you see this also with the police shooting stuff.
And I hope I modeled this correctly.
It is a good strategy when you see three scumbags of your own ethnicity getting waxed by a guy with a gun.
Which is basically what happened in Kenosha.
They usually call the three who got waxed as bad people.
I don't make them my role models.
I don't make them my cause.
I say, screw them.
I don't care about them. But if somebody does something awesome, I'm going to call that out.
I'm going to call that out, and I'm going to make them my hero.
So You know, when I see Jack Brewer, who not only was spectacular as a personality, as charisma, as a communicator, I mean, really, really good, but apparently his life lives up to that same standard.
So what I call him now as a role model, I feel like that's a good strategy.
It doesn't matter what ethnicity he is.
He's my role model because he works hard.
I would say the same thing about Kanye.
One of the greatest parts about Kanye is unstated.
This is the thing nobody talks about, but it should be the most important thing about Kanye.
He knows how to succeed.
He works hard, stays out of jail, Takes the right kind of risks.
Learns what he needs to.
Builds his talent stack.
Has a rock solid strategy for life.
I mean really solid strategy.
You can see it in everything he does.
He makes the right kind of risks.
When he does things that are provocative, he makes that work for him.
It makes his voice more important.
You've seen him succeed in three different fields at this point.
Because I would say that his His spiritual stuff he's doing now is hugely successful.
So he's hugely successful in music, producing, performing.
Those are pretty different.
Hugely successful in fashion.
And now hugely successful as a spiritual leader in this country.
So look at Kanye.
And what do we say when Kanye's in the news?
What do we talk about? He gets mocked.
He gets mocked for that one thing he said that you didn't like or that one time Taylor Swift was winning an award or they mock him for, I don't know, liking Trump.
As long as you're mocking your good role models and you're making heroes out of your literally criminals or people who weren't resisting arrest, and again, Don't take this generalization to apply to every situation.
I'm not saying that police made all the right decisions.
I'm not saying that all of the shootings were justified or good.
Nothing like that. Police clearly make mistakes because they're human.
If your police didn't make any mistakes, it would mean we're already taken over by AI and the robots.
Even they would make mistakes.
Have a better strategy is what I'm saying.
Alright, so I finally figured out...
This is because Anderson Cooper said last night to his group shot of gas, he said that the president suggested drinking bleach for the coronavirus.
If you're listening to this, don't drink bleach for anything.
It'll kill you.
And Anderson Cooper said that, and his He had at least one conservative, I think two conservative voices on the screen at the same time, which is a lot, actually.
And so I'll give them credit for that.
They had two Trump-friendly people on the screen with two others, which I give them credit for that.
So taking President Trump's Let's take him as a role model in this.
When CNN does bad things, I will viciously attack them because I think it's really bad for the country, the fake news.
But when they do something that's clearly a good thing, Anderson Cooper had two, not just one, because you'll often see just one.
He had two pro-conservative voices on with two on the other side, and I thought that was reasonable.
So I'm going to call that out as a compliment.
So Anderson Cooper states this fake news that the president suggested drinking bleach, and both of the conservatives just went, you know, they just made this noise like, I can't believe it.
And then here's the amazing part.
I always wonder, do the people who are pushing the fake news, how aware of it are they?
Don't you wonder that?
Are they doing it completely intentionally?
Or are they actually not sure what the real news is?
And Anderson Cooper, in my opinion, again, there's an interpretation that's coming, but in the way he dealt with their objections, he was saying, well, you didn't see that?
Are you telling me that didn't happen?
And they're like, like it didn't happen.
He's like, seriously, you're telling me that didn't happen?
And the genuine way he responded to that indicated to me, and it could be wrong, but it indicated that he thought it really happened.
And I thought, my God, my God, he thinks that actually happened.
And so I had to go back and look at what the president said to figure out how somebody who does news for a living could believe that actually happened.
And I figured out how they did the trick.
And it's the way they did...
There are at least four other hoaxes that fall into the same category.
All you have to do is edit the video so you're taking out a clarifier.
You just remove the clarifier if it comes before or after the statement.
So they did the same trick with the fine people hoax.
They edited out the part where Trump says, I'm not talking about the white nationalists and neo-Nazis.
They should be condemned completely.
If you take that out, It does look like he was praising the racists, which is why he clarified.
They just take the clarification out.
And even he was aware that it could be misunderstood, and so he clarified.
And then they just added out the clarification.
But they did the same trick for the overfeeding the Japanese koi fish.
All they do is lop off the part where his host...
Shinzo Abe, if I pronounce it right, did the same thing by dumping the rest of the food in there.
So Trump was just doing what he did.
But if you don't see that context, it looks like Trump's just being a jerk and throwing all the food in there.
And then the George Floyd case is slightly different, but it's instructive.
Video can't tell you that George Floyd had a fentanyl overdose in him, and it was going to kill him no matter what.
Video doesn't show that.
So if you show a video that can't show the central variable that mattered, which was, was he going to die anyway, and is that why he couldn't breathe?
Turns out that's the case.
So that video is fake somewhat accidentally.
It's sort of organically fake because it can't show you the inside of anybody's chemistry.
Video doesn't do that.
So you believe with your own eyes what you saw, but of course you're fooled because the video is misleading.
But here's how they did the drinking disinfectant and or that morphed into drinking bleach.
And I looked at it again and I played a few videos and I was like, holy cow, they did it again.
So here's what they do to pull off that trick.
Prior to Trump mentioning the injecting disinfectant, the immediate conversation before that was light used as a disinfectant.
Now, if you take out the context that was light as a disinfectant, initially talking about outside the body, it was Trump who talked about moving that idea inside the body.
If you take out the first part of the context, you're confused.
Then, to make matters worse, Later, Trump uses the word disinfectant.
They also cut off the end where he brought it back to light to clarify that he was talking about light.
So they take out the first part where the context is light as a disinfectant, using specifically the word disinfectant.
So that when you see disinfectant as a word in the part that they do show you, it's on a context.
Because now you think it's two different things, and I know that that's true, because people in the comments said, hey, I heard it with my own ears, I saw it with my own eyes.
He said disinfectant, not light, disinfectant.
If you didn't know the context, you would think those were two different things.
If you see that he finishes talking about light and And it's introduced, talking about light as a disinfectant, you see it differently.
Also, if you don't know, that in the news there was a specific high-tech company that was testing, literally injecting in a ventilator light into your trachea, maybe into your lungs if they can figure out how to do it, as a disinfectant.
If you didn't know that, and the fake news will never report that, You would not know it was a thing, and therefore that context would be missing.
Now, of course, this hoax would be debunked if the fake news ever showed you that the same week the president mentioned this light is a disinfectant, it was in the news.
And not only was it in the news, but some of his biggest supporters online were tweeting about it.
Big blue check pro-Trump accounts were tweeting about this exact thing.
So do you think that Trump notices or his staff notices and brings it to his attention when there's something important that might be optimistic, might be good news about the coronavirus?
Do you think his staff doesn't mention that to him?
If his supporters are chatting about it and it's a real thing and it's in the news?
Of course. Of course.
Of course they're going to tell him that there's some potential good news brewing.
That's exactly what he wants to hear.
He needs to hear the bad news too, but of course he wants to hear that there's potential good news.
Is there any chance he didn't hear that before talking about it?
Well, anything's possible, but not much chance, given that he spoke to it specifically.
I mean, it's pretty obvious that's what he was talking about.
So I remind you that video lies.
Nothing lies as well as video.
So if you say to yourself, anytime you hear these statements, are you saying that's false?
I saw it with my own eyes.
Or are you saying that's false?
I heard it with my own ears.
Or I watched him say it.
If you see any of those statements, that's somebody who saw a fake edited video.
Because they can't understand how they saw something with their own eyes.
And until people are sophisticated enough to know what the fake news is doing, because it seems intentional at this point, until you reach that level of sophistication, you're just locked in your little silo, and you can't get out.
Yes, thank you for noticing.
I am back in my house and my house is safe.
So I got lucky because I was within walking distance of the fire evacuation zone.
I wasn't walking distance to the fire, but the evacuation zone, you know, is ahead of the fire.
So that got as close as it could get.
That was pretty scary. So I'm glad that worked out.
Yes. So speaking of spying, I have a guest tomorrow on Periscope.
If my technology works, George Papadopoulos will be joining me live on Periscope tomorrow morning, usual time.
And he's got a book out.
We'll talk about that.
But I don't know why.
It feels to me...
See if you have the same feeling.
It feels to me as if George Papadopoulos isn't getting enough attention for how much he knows about this story.
So I'm going to fix that a little bit.
Because it was reported as fake news that there was spying on the Trump campaign.
The fake news still reports that like it didn't happen.
And they still report it like they had perfectly good reasons to be looking into stuff.
Which is amazing.
It's amazing that there's still people who believe that.
But maybe George Papadopoulos will give us a little context, and we'll talk to him, if the technology works.
You know, I always have a little trouble taking guests on Periscope, but we'll push through it.
Export Selection