Episode 1121 Scott Adams: I Explain the "Losing Strategy" of BLM and the Palestinians, a New Black-Only Town, Kurds in the Way
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
President Trump's 1st term, most successful of any Presidency
Losing strategy examples: BLM and Palestinians
Bill Maher: Democrats running cover for looting...bad idea
The Atlantic now wants Nobel Peace Prize ended
19 Black families building a Black-Only town from scratch
California is embarrassingly anti-science on climate change
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Yes, that is the view out my window in California.
And I remind you, it is not foggy here.
That is smoke.
And that smoke has been there for, I don't know, a week or so.
Gets worse, gets better.
But everything beyond those trees that are close to my house, I would normally be able to see for miles and miles.
And there's a whole town and ridge and a valley there.
But... I can't go outside.
I've got a little asthma issue.
We are on, what would you call it?
House arrest? I'm on house arrest.
But I hope the rest of you can get out and enjoy your day.
And what's a good way to start the day?
What would be the best way to get your day off to a great start?
Yeah, that's right. It's the simultaneous sip.
You got it right on the first try.
And all you need is a cup or 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 like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better except, apparently, the smoke in California.
And it's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Go. That's right, commenter.
My most favored possession, my e-bike, I cannot use.
I literally, you know, I barely can walk the dog.
You know, I take the dog out for 10 minutes to do her business, and that's it.
I wake up in this house.
I go to sleep in this house, and it's very much like being on house arrest.
Let's talk about some of the news, some of the things happening.
As Rush Limbaugh noted, the Bob Woodward book.
Do you remember the Bob Woodward book?
I know, it seems like a long time ago, doesn't it?
Time is so wonky now, because there's so much news.
Yeah, try to think back.
There was this book by Bob Woodward, I don't know, was it 10 years ago?
Oh no, it was this week.
And As Rush Limbaugh pointed out, he had, what, 18 interviews with the president, he had all the time to write this book, and the biggest bombshell he could make out of all that work, and of course the point is to come up with bombshells so you can sell your book, the best bombshell he could come up with is something that the president had said publicly and often himself.
That's it. The best bombshell revelation is something that you can go to the tape and say, that's not really so much of a bombshell, because here's a video of the president saying it in public, exactly what he said privately, saying it to the world at a press conference.
And here's the date on it.
You can look at it, and if you wondered if he took it seriously, even at the same time he was saying, I'm being a cheerleader for the country, I don't want to panic you, and he was telling you that he was doing that directly, fully transparent, at the same time he had closed travel, or at least much of it from China, to signal that he thought it was deadly serious.
So then the bombshell comes out and tells you those two things, Which you knew were true.
You knew he took it seriously.
You knew he intentionally and transparently was playing it down, admitted it in public at the time, and that was it.
That was your best bombshell.
Honestly, if we were even a little bit objective about this president, the first term of Trump, you could make a case as the most successful term of any president.
I think you could make that case.
And here's the interesting part.
You could make the case that Trump's first term is the most successful of any president, even acknowledging all the criticisms.
You could even say, all right, let's just say, just for argument's sake, let's just say every single thing the Democrats said was true.
Every criticism, just say it's all true.
He would still...
Still, his accomplishments are still so substantial that it would still be the best presidency of all time.
And the criticisms are not all true.
They're not. They're not even close to true.
They're mostly a series of hoaxes and fake news.
So now we have the news that Afghanistan and the Taliban, the government of Afghanistan and Taliban, are having some talks.
Now, I don't think you can get too optimistic about Afghanistan finding peace, but wouldn't you have said that a little while ago about North Korea and South Korea shaking hands?
Didn't seem likely, did it?
How about the Middle East breaking out in peace?
You might not have seen that coming.
So, in the age of Trump, there is a magic There's a magic thing that happens.
And if you don't see it yet, you'll start to see it as it takes form.
And it goes like this. Have you heard the word zeitgeist?
It's a German word.
There's no equivalent in English.
It has something to do with how our common...
Opinions of things can change all at the same time, almost like we're connected.
Now we're not, at least as far as I know, but there are some things that just become sort of true in the ether, just in the atmosphere, and everybody just sort of wakes up to the same feeling all at once.
And here's the thing that I think Trump does, and you're going to see this accelerate.
When Trump took office, Even people who didn't like him said, hey, well, at least he's a dealmaker, right?
So the first part of the zeitgeist was seven billion people, however many pay attention to American politics, some billions, woke up to say, hey, the United States has somebody who's famous for being a dealmaker.
Now, he's not made any deals as president, and some people will say, you know, he had They'll criticize his business past.
But we would all agree that his brand, and now it's sort of in our head, is deal-making, right?
The other thing he did was he made the impossible look possible.
You don't have to do that too many times before everybody starts looking at the other pile of impossibles.
Think about it, just conceptually.
You believe in your mind and There are a hundred impossible things about the world.
We're never going to get anywhere with North Korea.
We'll never get a better deal with China.
The Middle East will never see any more peace.
You could make a whole list of things which you know to be impossible.
You'll never get that stuff done.
And then you see the president do one of them.
And you say to yourself, whoa, Okay, didn't see that coming.
There he is standing on the DMZ, shaking hands with Kim.
Yeah, we don't have a deal.
Yeah, he didn't give up his nukes.
But are you still worried about Kim Jong-un nuking the United States?
Nope. Nope.
Your worry about that went pretty close to zero.
I've got to say, I was kind of worried about it, to be honest.
I was legitimately worried about North Korea for a while.
And Trump just took that away.
And you say to yourself, all right, all right, he got lucky.
He got lucky once.
Sure, anybody can get lucky.
Then he drove the unemployment rate before the coronavirus down to levels that nobody thought was even possible.
It's one of the things that Trump says all the time.
My favorite little throwaway phrase that he throws at the end of almost every sentence, nobody thought it was possible.
Nobody thought it could be done.
Now, I've told you this before.
Each time he says that, and you know how often he says it, right?
Nobody thought it could be done.
Everybody said it was impossible.
Each time he says it, it doesn't mean much of anything, right?
It's just sort of a throwaway line.
But trust me, if he says it five times a day for a year, you've heard it 1,500 times.
And it starts to just carve a little home in your head.
Oh, Trump...
Things that weren't possible before.
Trump, things that nobody said could be done.
Trump, a new record nobody saw coming.
Trump, nominated for two Nobel Prizes.
You know, two nominations for the same prize, but two separate nominations.
And here's what happens to the zeitgeist.
Once you've changed the thinking from, here's a hundred impossible things and it will always be that way, and Trump starts picking them off, the first one, okay, that was just luck.
That was just luck.
Yeah, you got one. All right, maybe we were wrong.
Maybe it wasn't so impossible.
Okay, we'll give you that.
You got one. Then he gets another one.
You're like, okay, okay, it's just two things.
You know, I get it. Two things could technically form a line and But it's just too coincidence.
Confirmation bias probably is a little bit overstated.
Aren't you exaggerating the benefit a little bit?
Let's not make too much of this.
And by the way, that first thing you did that was so special, Kim Jong-un still has his nukes.
So was that really a special?
And then the third impossible thing happens.
Let's say a peace deal between Israel and the UAE. And then you say, all right, that's three.
That's three. I still think this is luck, but you have my attention.
You see where it's going?
The mental structure that President Trump has designed into all of our brains did not exist before.
President Trump has rewired Rewired, programmed several billion human brains right in front of you.
That really happened.
There's no hyperbole in this statement.
This is a legitimate fact.
President Trump, intentionally and right in front of you while you watched every part of it, rewired billions of brains right in front of you.
And how did he rewire them?
Well, there's a whole bunch of things that people think about them, much of it bad, much of it good.
So certainly, you know, there's all kinds of noise in the data, right?
There's all kinds of ways that people feel.
It's this infinite variety of strong feelings in every direction.
But one of the things, and the one that mattered, the one that sits above all of that noise, the one that makes all the others unimportant, is this.
He can do what can't be done.
He can consistently, apparently, consistently do something that just can't be done.
You remember when he was, at one point, he was the poorest man in the world?
Because he was so far in debt years ago in his businesses that he had some, I think he had a record for being like, you have the greatest negative net worth of all time.
And came back. Not only did he come back to make his money back, but he's now President of the United States and probably going to get elected to a second term.
So how many people thought that was possible?
How many people thought that after the Access Hollywood tape dropped that he could still get elected?
How many people thought he would get elected at all?
So Trump has created this non-stop pattern of, yeah, he does things you don't like.
I'm not discounting the fact that he does some things you don't like.
That's true. But he also does things, if you're going to be a little bit objective at all, you have to give me this.
You have to give me this.
He does things you thought were impossible.
And it's starting to look routine.
I think he's going to get...
Maybe 20% or more of the black vote.
In 2016, when I told people, as I did publicly, I said, you know, I think he's going to set records for the black vote.
Obviously not the election that was over, but maybe the next one.
And sure enough, how many of you thought that was possible?
That he would set records for black votes?
You didn't think that was possible.
And so... By creating a programming change in our minds, which we've changed that hundred impossible things into, why do these keep happening?
It looks like all these impossibles are happening.
When Trump signed the most favored nations thing for pharmaceuticals, what was the first thing you thought when you said, wait a minute, He just signed an executive order.
That's all it was. Didn't require a Congress.
Didn't require anything except the president and a piece of paper and a pen signing a document that lowered our drug costs by making it illegal for them to charge us more than they charge somebody else.
And I thought, I thought that was impossible, because if it wasn't impossible, why didn't it happen before?
Now, the obvious reason is that the pharmaceutical companies were too powerful compared to past presidents.
Apparently, apparently, the pharmaceutical companies are not more powerful than Trump, because he just waved his hand and swept them off the table.
I guess they're complaining.
I haven't seen any complaints.
I haven't seen any blowback.
I haven't seen any negative.
He'll never move the American embassy to Jerusalem because that would cause all kinds of, oh, he did it.
Okay, I guess it wasn't impossible.
Well, it wouldn't make sense to recognize the Golan Heights because that, oh, he did it?
He just did it. That's done.
Okay, I guess that worked out.
Well, it certainly would be reckless and crazy to send a drone to kill General Soleimani.
I mean, you do that and you're going to create a giant war in the middle.
What? He already did that?
Lindsey Graham told him not to do that.
He said it was reckless. That's over the line.
He did it anyway. And did it work out?
Yeah, it kind of did.
Well, but there's one thing we know.
If you remove American forces from Syria, that certain part of Syria that was near the Turkish border, we would be exposing all our Kurdish allies and the Kurds would just be slaughtered.
So it was kind of impossible.
It was literally just impossible to remove our troops because we cannot be the kind of country that would leave our allies to be slaughtered.
So you've been seeing all the news about those Kurds being slaughtered?
Nope. Didn't happen.
It was impossible.
And then Trump just did it.
Right in front of you. It can't be done.
There's no way to do this without these people all getting killed.
Watch me do it. And then he just did it.
And I think we've waited long enough to determine that it worked out.
Right? Now, how many times does the president need to do this?
And now there's some talk Maybe Saudi Arabia might be the next deal with Israel, which would be sort of the big one.
And that does make sense, doesn't it?
Because you see the smaller deals being made because that tests the system.
I don't think it's an accident that some smaller countries are going first.
To just see, okay, Bahrain, Alright, Bahrain, how'd that go?
Everybody? Everybody okay with this?
Objections? Just the Palestinians?
Okay. Now, if you think back to 2018, when the president, President Trump, was being clearly soft on Saudi Arabia after the murder of Khashoggi, and pretty much the entire world on the left and the right said, that's a mistake.
There's a big old mistake, Trump.
You can't just let that go.
You have to come down hard on Saudi Arabia.
You just got to do it.
There's no option to this.
And then he didn't do it.
And I said, wait a minute, I think you're missing something big.
I said to the public. I said, Saudi Arabia now owes the United States something big.
So what President Trump did was he created an asset out of nothing, which is one of his greatest tricks.
He created an asset out of nothing.
The asset he created was Saudi Arabia owes us a big, big frickin' favor because Trump did cover for them.
He did it publicly.
He did it at the risk and the cost of his own reputation.
Tremendous expense.
Tremendous expense for him personally.
Look at the amount of just flack that Trump took for that public stand, which he was quite consistent on, not going hard on Saudi.
Now, time passes.
What do we need from Saudi Arabia?
Lots of things.
There are lots of cooperation in a variety of different ways.
But the one thing that really, really could just I don't know, just change everything.
As if Saudi Arabia says, you know, it's time.
It's time to work things out.
It's time to be the adults in the room.
It's time to do something with Israel that's permanent and lasting and just sets up the region for prosperity in the future.
I feel like Saudi Arabia is going to come online.
Really soon. Before the election, it would make sense.
Because if you're Saudi Arabia, here's what you're not going to do.
Remember? Saudi Arabia owes Trump a favor.
Here's what they're not going to do.
If they have any intention of jumping on the peace deal train, and it looks like they do, they're going to do it before election.
You're going to see one of the biggest dynamite explosions in brains that you'll ever see if they pull this in before election.
And I would guess that's what they're aiming for.
We'll see if they pull it off.
So that's my big takeaway, is that Trump has changed our brains and changed what we think about what is possible from what is not possible.
He has absolutely rewired your brain.
Too good effect, I would say.
Making us all more entrepreneurial.
Maybe a little bit more adept at risk management.
I mean, you get that for free just by observing.
Because how many times have you now seen something that seemed impossible get done?
Now, that's a lesson that transfers into your life.
How many hundred things do you have in your personal life that you have said to yourself, well, that's impossible.
I mean, you know, I'll work on the stuff that's doable.
I'm not going to work on this big pile of impossibles.
Maybe take a shot at a few.
I can tell you that in my life, there have been quite a few impossibles.
One of them, you all know the story, I lost my voice permanently.
I had an incurable voice problem.
There was no solution.
The rest of my life I would not be able to communicate in a way that people could understand.
But here I am.
100,000 people will listen to this periscope eventually, unrecorded as well as live.
And how do I sound?
Right? So this is one of the great, great lessons.
And this is the sort of thing that Trump will never get full credit for.
And it's the, I would argue, the most important thing he does, and yet it will be the thing he doesn't get credit for, is that he's changing what you think is possible.
He's changing that.
Do you know who else does that?
Elon Musk. Elon Musk is rewiring your brain.
Now, he's not doing it as intentionally, I don't think.
It could be. But I don't think he's doing it as intentionally as Trump is doing it.
Trump is doing it, you know, for effect.
But Elon Musk, he's literally rewired your brain from thinking that there were a set of things that are just too hard to do to, when are we going to the moon?
When can I have my electric car?
He just made the impossible sound possible.
So you should keep an eye on people like that.
Let's talk about winning strategies versus losing strategies.
And we'll get into the news, but let me work up to it this way.
I may have told you the story or not, I don't know.
But years ago, many years ago, I was in a relationship in which I would sometimes buy flowers for the woman I was with.
I wasn't married at the time, but it was a long-term relationship.
And I would give her just flowers for no reason.
Now, I knew from prior conversations that it was more meaningful to her to give flowers when it wasn't Valentine's Day or something.
And so I would give her flowers, and she would say this.
Oh, what are you guilty for?
And we would laugh, because, you know, it's sort of a standard joke.
Ha ha ha, you must be guilty if you're giving flowers.
Now, the first time I heard that, I thought to myself, huh, you know, I get it's just a joke, and I have a sense of humor, but I feel like I didn't get anything in return.
I feel like I got, in a very small way, I mean really trivial...
But in a small way, I feel like I got punished for doing the right thing.
Suddenly, I have to explain what I'm guilty for?
Like, that had nothing to do with anything.
I was just literally trying to do something good.
So the next time I brought her flowers, she said the same joke.
And somewhere around the second or third time it happened, I said, look, I've got to talk to you.
Please, please don't say that.
Please let me have some benefit for doing the thing you want me to do.
Don't punish me for what you want more of because you'll end up with less of it.
I'm just like a dog.
Humans and dogs are not that different.
If you give somebody a treat for doing the right thing and you do it enough, you'll train them to do the right thing.
If you penalize them for doing the right thing, even if it's just a joke, over time, It becomes a penalty that they don't want to do.
What happened?
Did she stop doing that joke?
Nope. Nope.
Didn't stop doing the joke.
And eventually it just killed my feelings.
Honestly. It just killed my feelings.
So I'm not saying that's the one reason that, you know, things didn't last.
But watch this technique and In a lot of other bigger issues.
Let me give you some examples.
Bill Maher was talking last night about how it's such a bad idea for the Democrats to be, let's say, running cover for looting.
So a lot of people on the left are trying to make the case that the looting is just a property crime and it's It's appropriate within the larger context of how important the issue is, and you can't really get action until you've caused a little distress on the people who need to act.
And so nobody loves looting, but it has its place.
It fits within this world.
It's okay. Don't worry too much about the looting, is what you're hearing from the Democrats.
Now, given that people only hear from their own side, like Democrats listen to Democrats, Republicans hear from Republicans for the most part, what happens to looting?
You get more of it, right?
Wouldn't you always get more of the thing you're getting complimented for?
So the protesters are getting on TV. They're getting the fun of the protest.
It looks like they have some community feeling.
So they get good feelings from it.
And then their team, the people who are not protesting, but rather the support structure for them, compliments them and basically rewards them for bad behavior.
Now, if you reward people for bad behavior, what happens?
You will, of course, get more bad behavior.
Not sometimes.
Not, well, there's a risk of getting more bad behavior.
No, I'm not saying there's a risk of it.
I'm saying that 100% of the time, the thing you reward, you'll get more of.
Doesn't matter if it's an animal.
Doesn't matter if it's a human.
Doesn't matter if it's a Democrat.
Doesn't matter if it's a Republican.
If you're alive...
Like you can breathe and see the world.
You respond to rewards and penalties.
So let's take this to another level.
The Palestinians reacted with unhappiness about the peace that's breaking out in the Middle East.
So take the concept that you'll get more of what you reward and less of what you penalize.
So now Israel is working out deals for mutual benefit with neighboring Arab countries.
What should be everybody's approach to that?
Reward, right?
Should President Trump not get a Nobel Peace Prize nomination?
He should. He should.
Would that make President Trump more likely to try even harder to get more peace in more places?
Yes! Yes!
Of course! If he had been penalized, President Trump, for working hard to get peace in the Middle East, would he keep going?
Would he put as much resource and time into it if he just kept getting penalized for it?
No. Because he's a human animal.
It has nothing to do with his personality or character.
You do more of what you're rewarded for.
Period. As soon as you think that doesn't apply, you're not part of the productive world anymore.
You're off in imaginary land.
Rewards and penalties work.
So what did the Palestinian envoy to the Arab League say?
So what did he say about This deal with Israel and the UAE. He said, with all pride, Palestine wants a decision from the Arab foreign ministers, blah, blah, blah.
And then he goes to this, quote, but Palestine was unable to impose that, in other words, the agreement they wanted people to agree to.
So the draft resolution collapsed.
And here's the key part.
This is everything you need to know.
He says, and remember, he's an envoy, so he can speak for the government.
So he's not just a guy.
He's speaking for the government.
And he says, we have dignity, martyrs, prisoners, and refugee camps of glory, and this is enough for us.
Oh my God.
This is an official government person from the Palestinian people saying that their goal...
What they want. In other words, it's better to have these things.
Better than peace.
Better than prosperity.
Better than health. Better than life.
Is these things. Dignity.
Martyrs. Prisoners.
Prisoners. And refugee camps of glory.
And this is enough for us.
Alright. If this is your approach, can you predict how it will go?
Yes, you can. There's a 100% chance that this approach leads to misery.
There's no other opportunity for...
You know, talk about impossible.
It's one thing to say something is so unlikely it seems impossible.
It's another thing to say you're doing everything you can to fail.
I mean, if you made a list, I'd say, all right, let's make a list of all the things you shouldn't do If you want a better world for yourself and your people.
What would be on the list?
Well, how about punishing people when good things happen and rewarding bad behavior.
Let's say somebody does a suicide attack.
We'll reward them for that.
Their names will be famous.
Their family will be paid off.
The Palestinians have literally reversed the lists.
They're penalizing the good things and they're rewarding the bad things and they're getting exactly the outcome that that predicts.
Exactly the outcome it predicts.
What would they do if they wanted to reverse that?
What would it look like? Here's what it would look like.
Imagine the Palestinians said, you know...
We like the fact that peace is breaking out in some places.
We're not getting what we want, and we're not releasing on it.
We want some stuff.
But we're happy that things are happening.
Congratulations. Just think about that.
So that would be a reward to Israel and to the other Arab countries.
Now, Palestinians just hypothetically say, you know...
We're among the worst affected in many ways, and if peace is breaking out in all these places, why don't we just package this up and we'll be on board, but we also have a bunch of things we want, but you guys are doing a great job.
And hey, if we can help you out, if we can help your part of the deal work, can you let us know how?
We'll help your deal work.
And then what happens?
Then the entire Middle East says, Well, we kind of like you guys.
Thank you. Thank you for being positive.
We didn't expect that, but thank you.
And then the Palestinians say, you know what would make things even?
I know we're never going to get the right of return exactly, but wouldn't it be okay if sometimes we could buy our way back in?
So perhaps people who lost property could be compensated with reparations They don't have to use that money to, let's say, buy property someday.
I don't even know what's legal. Can they do that?
Can they buy property?
If you were a Palestinian and you had money, what would it take to buy property in Israel?
And could you buy back, maybe not the same place you were displaced from, but could you buy back property in Israel if you wanted to, if you had the money?
So, suppose the Palestinians said, look, we're going to be as positive and helpful as we can be But you know what would really make everything work?
Would be a gigantic pot of money that's partly reparations and partly development that would make the Palestinian areas just super good.
And it's a big number.
I mean, I'm embarrassed to say how big the number is.
But did I mention that we're being really helpful on all this other stuff?
We're going to be helpful in every other way.
We just want this big pile of money.
It's kind of gigantic, but it would really solve this problem once and for all.
Now, would any of that work?
Probably not, because it's the Middle East.
But my point is this.
You don't have any chance if you're rewarding bad behavior and punishing good behavior.
So, in the long run, if that doesn't ever reverse, they'll always have the same outcome.
Let's talk about Black Lives Matter doing basically the same thing.
You know what I said with the The riots and the looting, that's more.
But let me give you a mental experiment, sort of a thought experiment, of what it would look like for Black Lives Matter, the group, the organization.
We're not talking about the philosophy of it, just the organization.
What would it take for them to be more effective?
What would it take for them to reward good behavior and punish bad behavior?
Well, what are they doing right now?
Right now they're taking somebody who's accused of a sex crime, who resisted arrest, got shot.
Nobody's in favor of that.
But now that person will be a hero with their name on NFL helmets, apparently.
Now, if you're Black Lives Matter, have you punished bad behavior or have you rewarded bad behavior?
You know the answer.
Black Lives Matter, right in front of you and as publicly as they possibly could, are rewarding bad behavior.
They're actually making a hero and as somebody who certainly was at least half responsible for the outcome, the tragic outcome.
You could argue that the police officers should have been smarter, better, better trained, should have handled it differently.
Maybe. I'm no expert.
I wouldn't say that's true for sure.
Because if the guy was going for a knife, you know, what can you do?
But maybe. I'm open to the argument.
Now, let's say if they'd reversed it.
Imagine if you will, and this is impossible to imagine, but just go with it for imagination.
Imagine if when the news came out that the guy who got shot seven times had been resisting arrest and had been reaching for a weapon...
And they had been incredibly accused of some bad stuff.
Suppose Black Lives Matter said, hold on, our first reaction was an overreaction.
If we're being honest, we have a problem to fix, but let's be honest about it, he brought it on himself to some extent.
100%? Maybe not.
Maybe the police have a part in this, right?
Reasonable people could say, maybe there's two problems here.
And you needed both of those problems to get the tragedy.
If Black Lives Matter said some version of this, you know, it looks like we've got to work on training the people that we care about the most to be the safest and act the safest in these situations.
What would that look like?
That would be a reward.
When the George Floyd thing happened, Just about every white person in the world was already sold.
When you saw the George Floyd video for the first time, no matter what you ever thought before, when you saw that thing, you said to yourself, ah, okay, I get it now.
That looks like bad police behavior.
I don't believe this necessarily would have happened to a white guy.
I don't know. But I haven't seen it, so I got questions.
If at that moment, black America had said, Do you see what we mean?
Look at the video.
Do you see what we mean now?
Can you help? Can we talk about some solutions?
White America would have said, hell yes!
Hell yes! Let's talk about some solutions.
We don't want that. We don't want it to happen to you.
We don't want it to happen to anybody.
How do we have less of that?
So that should have been the first reaction.
And it would have been very productive.
Here's what the The reaction should have turned into, when we learned that he died of a fentanyl overdose, or probably it was an opioid overdose, it could be that the police action exacerbated it.
But it turns out that he may have been lying to them about whether he had anything.
If he had told the truth, in other words, if he'd done his part, he probably would have been treated more like a medical problem and maybe even saved.
But he did everything wrong.
And the police may have done things wrong as well, and the combination was a bad thing.
Here's what Black Lives Matter should have done, if they wanted improvement.
If they wanted it, they should have rewarded the right thing.
And the moment they heard that he was drugged up and that may have been a complicated issue, they should have pulled back.
They should have pulled back.
And they should have said to the police, I think we owe you an apology.
You still might need to do something differently, and we're not happy with you, but it doesn't look like you murdered somebody.
It doesn't look like a race murder.
We don't know what this is, and we better get to the bottom of this, and we're not happy.
But it wasn't what we first thought it was.
If Black Lives Matter had said that, how would you, let's say you're not in the organization, how would you feel about that?
That would completely change how I feel.
Completely. I would say, oh, I get it.
You're getting really worked up over things that look real, but as soon as you find out that maybe the story was different than you thought, you've now modified your opinion just as you should.
You rewarded people for doing right.
You punished people for doing wrong.
Yeah, I can work with that.
I can work with that.
But that's not what you're saying.
There's some kind of need for self-destruction that's built into the Black Lives Matter movement.
It's built into the Antifa, of course.
Maybe Antifa is half the problem there.
It's built into the Palestinian technique.
Their way forward is they reward the things that are in the wrong direction.
All right. I'm still shaking my head over this story about Robert Mueller's dozens of people on the Russia Collusion Project They claim that their phones have been wiped and that they can't turn them in to be looked at.
Dozens. Now, you don't have to be a genius, and I don't think there's any disagreement on this, that they did it intentionally to hide evidence.
Now, it could be that the evidence they were hiding is just any personal conversations because nobody wants anybody to look at their entire phone history.
That'd be pretty risky.
But I think that they're going to get completely away with this.
It looks like the most amazing, obvious, mass-coordinated crime.
Because first of all, it's probably coordinated.
There must have been at least one person who said, hey, I'm going to wipe my phone.
You might want to think about this.
I doubt they all just had the same idea at once.
So first of all, there's some coordination.
To hide evidence.
And they should be the people that we most trust to keep us on the legal path.
It's hard to put a number on how bad this is.
This is a 10 out of 10 in badness, but because many of them are lawyers, they know how to do things without getting tactically in trouble.
So as long as there's reasonable doubt about how their phone got wiped, As long as there's a little bit of reasonable doubt, I guess they get away with it.
But, wow, does this reduce your trust in the system?
All right, here's a question I have.
You know the Antifa, or the protesters, I don't know if it's Antifa or just the protesters, they have these snack vans.
So literally, like a big panel van, usually has lots of graffiti on it, That they park near the protests to feed the protesters, I guess.
They have snacks. And I thought to myself, at least the one I saw that was in Rochester or something, I thought, New Yorkers are getting really soft.
Because if you're ripping up my town, I mean, I feel like it.
If I were in upstate New York and I saw protesters destroying The homes, well, mostly businesses, the people I knew, or people I cared about in my town.
And I knew that they owned exactly one asset.
They don't own much except what's on their bodies.
If I knew they had one asset, these snack vans, and I'm watching all these same people destroy my town, and then go back to their snack van to get a snack, And I'm saying to myself, well, obviously the snack van will be on fire in a few minutes.
And I'm like, okay, that shouldn't take more than 60 seconds for that.
And I'm like, wait, that's the same snack van.
I'm confused. The snack van is not on fire?
What kind of pussies are you?
What kind of town do you have that you're not going to go after their one asset if they park it right on the street?
I'm not saying that...
I never promote violence, by the way.
So this is just a question.
Why are the locals rolling over so easily?
I mean, that snack van sort of is an obvious target, if you know what I mean, strategically speaking.
I don't recommend anybody destroy any private property or violence.
It is just confusing to me why that hasn't happened.
The Atlantic, which is now officially a laughing stock, decided to write an article calling for the abolition of the Nobel Peace Prize.
So, it wasn't when Arafat got it.
They were cool with that.
It wasn't when Obama got it for doing nothing.
They were cool with that, but boy, you have two nominations for President Trump and, well, it's time to cancel the prize.
So if you can imagine anything that the Atlantic could have done to make themselves look more ridiculous, it's hard to imagine.
All right, here's an interesting development.
19 black families in August, just recently, They purchased 97 acres in which they want to build basically a black town.
So 19 black families decided it's either dangerous or I think they thought it was dangerous to live among white people because I guess they believe that they will be killed by cops or white people or something.
Now, independent of whether that is an overreaction, I kind of love the experiment part of it.
I say this all the time.
There's nothing more useful than experiments, even if they don't work.
At least it tells you what doesn't work.
And the fact that they're thinking of sort of building a town from scratch, I love that.
And they're also trying something that hasn't been tried before, which is, hey, it's 2020.
I mean, there have been segregated places before, But they haven't done it this way.
Not in 2020, not with all the advantages of technology, not doing it voluntarily.
Independent of whether you think this would be a great idea or a bad idea, could you at least join me in agreeing that experiments are good?
I hope it works.
Maybe they learn something.
You may see a greater trend toward segregated groups, but I feel like we could see it differently now.
You know, if you go back a few decades, the idea of segregated towns or segregated businesses or segregated organizations is just pure racism and had to end.
Usually because it was the white organizations keeping other people out.
But now it's 2020.
And we've sort of, for the most part, I would say, we can't think of an exception, for the most part, anybody who wants to be in any organization can do it fine.
I don't think there are any clubs you can't join or teams you can't be on because of your color, right?
So given that we've sort of overcome, you know, for the most part, the biggest part of the hurdle, if you're doing it voluntarily, if you're voluntarily saying, hey, You know, we black people want to have our own town and see if we can make this work.
Is that bad?
I don't know. Your first reflex might be, ah, that's a bad idea.
Segregation is from the past.
But this isn't the past.
Can people choose to associate with whatever people they want, whether it's by political preference or by age or by gender or by ethnicity, if they all want to?
Yeah. I mean, somebody says it's racist.
Is it racist if anybody can do it?
In other words, if white people also could create a little white town and it wasn't racist, they just...
Well, I guess it would seem racist no matter what.
I guess I will accept the categorization that it's racist by definition.
But do you think that they should not have the right...
to associate any way they want, given that it's not a legal requirement and nobody is forcing them to do it.
There's no force. So, I don't know.
It's a good question. I like experimenting, so we'll see what happens.
What else we got here?
California has gone fully anti-science now, which is so embarrassing.
So our governor has decided to politicize the fires And says that climate change is the obvious reason and that now you don't even need to look at the science anymore.
You can just look out your window and there's smoke and therefore, logically, if there's smoke outside, logically, can you see all the connecting tissue?
Logically, there's smoke outside and therefore it's caused by climate change.
You saw all the logical connection to that, right?
There's a fire. More fires, and therefore climate change is the cause.
Did you miss the part where it's logically connected?
No, you didn't miss it.
It's not there. Could it be there?
Well, I suppose. I suppose.
I'm not ruling out that some climate change might have some effect in some way.
I don't know. What I do know is there's no evidence of it.
So we usually don't act on things that have zero evidence.
What evidence do we have?
Well, if you follow Michael Schellenberger, as you should, you will know that our forest management has been so poor that the buildup of underbrush was guaranteed to create exactly the situation we have.
So we have one explanation which explains everything you see and is completely logical from beginning to end.
Oh, we used to do good forest management and we didn't have these problems.
We stopped doing good forest management, which causes forest fires, big ones.
Then the big forest fires happened after we stopped forest management, which guarantees big fires happen.
Then the big fires happened exactly as you knew they would have to because you stopped forest management, which is the whole point of reducing the fires.
And our governor, frickin' idiot, stood in front of the world with his smoldering background to make it look dramatic and said, it's obvious that climate change has caused this.
No. Here's what's obvious.
It's obvious that fools who can't do math have looked at the climate change problem and closed down our only chance in California to have electricity, which is to have natural gas and electricity Nuclear, until something better comes along.
But he's anti-science about nuclear, anti-science about even just doing the math of what kinds of technologies are good for the environment in the long run, which we're not.
He didn't understand anything about forest management.
He's the guy in charge.
He's the guy in charge, and he seems to be the only person who doesn't know that poor forest management is a big part of the problem.
On top of that, what about context?
If you were to look at the history of California, and we can reconstruct it from whatever, tree rings, however we do that, we can know that the forest fires we're experiencing now, as bad as they are, aren't even bad historically.
So if we didn't have climate change in the past, and yet the forest fires were far bigger back then, or at least more destructive, He is so non-science based that it is disturbing.
All right. And I think that's...
So here's an interesting thing developing.
You probably all know Jonah Goldberg, right?
Conservative, but not a big fan of the president.
And Jonah Goldberg was noting on Twitter that...
I think it was a Mark Levin tweet he was responding to.
And Levin was tweeting somebody else's article, noting that it seems that Democrats are prepping the country for a violent coup, an actual military coup.
Now, Jonah Goldberg thinks that that is a ridiculous worry.
It's sort of an absurdity.
It's an overblown risk.
And that the Democrats are not intentionally prepping the country for a military coup, in their view, under the condition that Trump loses but refuses to leave office.
And Jonah pointed out, when I commented on it, he said...
This is what Jonah says.
He says, easily is much evidence, if not more, that Trump is setting the table to claim election is illegitimate.
You guys, meaning, I guess, me, you guys and the resistance crowd are playing the exact same game and pretending only the other side is being irresponsible or dangerous.
You all are. And here's my take on that.
I would agree with Jonah's comment that Trump is also Prepping the country for the outcome of the election to be illegitimate, right?
Well, you would agree with that, that Trump is definitely warning us and prepping us and sort of getting you a little bit hypnotized into the idea that the election outcome might not be dependable or credible.
But here's the thing.
When he talks about it, he never talks about the military getting involved.
And so the default assumption is that if there's some ambiguous outcome, that the Republicans would look to the Supreme Court, probably, or they'd suggest a redo or a recount or something working within the system.
Now, is there a risk That you would get a few more months of President Trump until the system worked its way out and we had a real outcome?
Yeah, I suppose so.
Is the President getting us ready for a murky, ambiguous outcome that could be messy?
Yes. Has he ever mentioned the military?
No. No.
Have you ever talked to any Republican Who talks about using the military to keep Trump in office if he lost the election?
Have you heard any legitimate person say, you know, even if Trump loses the election, I think he should just use his military and stay in office?
No. No.
I've never heard anybody think that would be a good idea.
But have you heard Democrats say out loud, in public, That if the president doesn't leave, and they think the result is that he should, that the military should step up and remove him.
Yes. They're saying it directly, they're writing articles about it, they're talking about it, and they are prepping the country for a military coup.
I agree that President Trump is prepping us for not trusting the outcome, but is he wrong about that?
Is it wrong to prep people for something that's true?
I'll tell you what's true.
No matter whether the outcome is accurate or not, the country is going to be a little iffy on it.
It doesn't matter what the outcome is, we're still going to say, I'm not so sure.
And that had nothing to do with Trump.
Well, he exacerbates it.
But it was going to be that way anyway.
Here's what I think. I think that Trump...
Could make the situation better by saying, look, here's the deal, people.
If the election outcome is not good, the Republican approach is to go to the...
I don't know how this works, actually.
But whatever the process is, you go to the Supreme Court, you redo the election, I don't know, you do some analysis, whatever you do, some kind of audit of the system.
But I think the president should tell us what it looks like.
Because the Democrats have told us what it looks like if they don't get their way.
It looks like they're going to be pushing the military to make a move.
I don't think the military will, but it looks like they might try to get that done.
So while I don't believe that there will be any kind of a major coup in this country, it's definitely an option.
And I think that the Democrats are putting the option on the table.
That doesn't mean that they want it to happen, but they're definitely going Opening the option.
And I don't think it's the same in both directions.
All right. That's what I had to do.
That's what I had to tell you today.
Somebody says, no way, it will be a landslide.
One of the things I heard about, was it Michigan and maybe Wisconsin?
I forget which. There were two states.
There's somebody who knows more than I do.
I wish I could... But on Twitter I saw somebody noted that some of those states have a lot of rural voters.
And by rural, I mean don't have the internet.
So there may be a lot of people who are not being polled because they're just practically off the grid.
And it might be the number of people who are Trump supporters.
Dems are cheaters.
Obama spied on Trump, somebody says.
Alright, just looking at your comments before I sign off today.
How did you like today's Periscope, by the way?
Completely uncharted territory?
Yeah, we do have constitutional deadlines, but suppose we don't meet them.
What do you do? I'd like to hear the what do you do part.
Remember Alinsky.
You know, I have great questions about the Alinsky stuff.
A lot of people get accused of using the Alinsky rules for radicals stuff, and you can see it.
I mean, you can certainly see that he recommended this stuff, and you see people doing that stuff, but I don't know if it's because they read that.
I just don't know that...
I think maybe just some things are obvious.
Attacking the other side Whoever the other side is, in every way you can attack them, mocking them, etc., that just seems common sense to me.
I don't know if you need Alinsky to do any of that.
Maybe. How about Bill Maher's comments on Trump more likely to win?
Well, I didn't see the show.
I only saw reporting about the show.
But if Bill Maher thinks that Trump is on the way to win, I would look at him and I'd look at Michael Moore and I would say they are two people who represent more of the left who are a little bit clearer-eyed.
So if both of them think Trump might win, that means something.
Well, thank you.
You're all too kind to me.
And... Yeah, just looking at your comments.
Alright, that's all for now.
Maybe I should let this go just because you're complimenting me.
Remember I told you in the beginning that people will do more of whatever they're rewarded for?
You've watched me doing these periscopes and you see how much energy I put into it?
Why? Why do I put so much energy into...
Doing this. It's completely outside my field, etc.
And the answer is I got rewarded for it.
So when I was doing periscopes in which, you know, the first periscopes I would have 25 people.
But those 25 people would say, hey, I like this.
Do it again. And I'd say, huh, okay.
25 people saw it.
Three of them said, I liked it.
Do it again. Oh, do it again.
And then, you know, 35 people see it and four of them said they like it.
I'm like, huh, I'll give this another shot.
It's very powerful.
Reward what you want more of and you will have a good life.
That's all. Yeah, not Roger Moore.
Michael Moore, sorry. Oh, let me answer this.
Was your sinus surgery worth it?
It was life-changing.
Life-changing. Yeah, just a complete transformation of life.
I can breathe through my nose.
My allergies basically don't exist.
My voice is different.
My smell came back.
My sense of taste. My hearing is no longer affected.
I would say on a scale of 1 to 10, it was a 10.
Very unpleasant.
The process of going through it is kind of unpleasant.
