Episode 1135 Scott Adams: Details on the Coup Plotters Emerge, BLM Focuses on Revenge Over Solutions, Hacking Voter Brains
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
CNN dark...on the biggest story in the history of America?
Is Biden the candidate...to protect those guilty of a coup?
Is BLM a REVENGE oriented movement?
8 AM...How's Joe doing today, another "lid" this morning?
When the election is not deemed credible...then what?
Kim Jong-Un issues apology
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Better than even a normal coffee with Scott Adams.
We're talking one of the best of all time.
I don't even know what I'm going to say yet.
But I feel that confident.
Aloha to you too.
And before we get going, would anybody like to do a thing called the simultaneous SIPC?
You know you do. All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass or a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen drink or a flask or a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's the unparalleled pleasure.
Of the simultaneous hip, and it happens now.
Go. Well, according to Jack Posobiec, this podcast is better when you play it at 1.5 times speed, which is both insulting and totally true.
I do the same thing.
If you haven't If you haven't at least experimented with listening to podcasts at higher speeds, you really ought to check it out.
So I don't know if Periscope has that option, but I put it on YouTube later, and it's also on podcasts later, so you can listen to it that way.
Or you can listen to it on the locals.com subscription site.
Alright, so let's talk about some stuff.
I like looking at the interesting ideas that entrepreneurs come up with for dealing with the coronavirus situation.
And the Alamo Drafthouse, which is a series of, I guess, movie theaters.
They might be in Texas.
And they came up with an idea of letting people rent out the whole theater and just take people in there that are your own friends.
So you basically, for $150 for the theater, another $150 for popcorn and food or whatever, you and your friends can just have the whole theater for a movie.
Not bad. I don't know if it's the best idea in the world.
My town has outdoor movie theaters now.
They're doing drive-ins and such.
But I like the creativity of it.
It was a good idea. So President Trump signed an executive order essentially saying that pre-existing conditions would be covered, but of course it's a non-binding executive order.
Now let me ask you this.
How much is a non-binding promise, if you will, to maintain, to make sure the pre-existing conditions are covered?
Would you trust A president who made a promise like that and said, I'm going to cover the pre-existing conditions.
Don't worry about it.
Do you trust that president?
Well, here's the thing.
One of the things that President Trump has done right is he's done such a good job at doggedly pursuing the promises that he's made that it is completely credible.
Now, nothing in this world is guaranteed But in terms of whether President Trump would stick to his promise of fighting to keep the pre-existing conditions covered, I feel as though he created that asset.
Meaning that if you asked me four years ago, I'd say, well, I don't know.
Politicians make promises.
Sometimes they keep them.
Sometimes they have a reason not to.
Read my lips.
No new taxes. Well, it changed my mind.
So four years ago, I would have said, I don't think you could be positive that this president or any other president would keep a campaign promise.
But now we've watched him operate for four years.
It seems really clear to me that the president puts a very high value on doing what he says he'll do.
Wouldn't you agree? Now, he puts a very low value on On being specifically accurate on details and, you know, he uses hyperbole and he fails the fact-checking.
And it's abundantly clear that he's not concerned whatsoever about getting those details right.
Now you can hate that or you can love it, but anybody can observe that.
No matter which side you're on, we're observing the same thing.
He puts a very low value on those little niceties and the details and being technically accurate.
He does try to be directionally accurate.
In other words, he's trying to persuade the country in a productive direction.
There's nothing evil about it.
But when it comes to keeping a promise, Even if he can't get it done as quickly as he wants or can't get it done at all, such as building the wall, it's slow, but it's happening.
So you can tell he's at least putting the full measure of effort into it.
And I feel as though the president created this asset out of nothing.
He created an asset of believability when it comes to keeping his campaign promises, which is unique.
I'm not sure every president had that exactly.
You know, you always had the, you can keep your doctor if you want it, situations.
But I don't know that Trump has any of those.
If you look for something like that in Trump, and fact check me on this, I might be just missing something that I'm not thinking that would be obvious to you.
But I know that a critic would say, well, what about the part about making Mexico pay for the wall?
I would say, I don't think anybody took that too seriously.
I mean, sure, that was a campaign theme, etc.
You could say it was a promise, but was it?
Was it really? Did the people who voted for him say, yeah, I think he means that.
He's totally going to get Mexico to pay for that wall.
Now, you could argue that he did get them to pay for the wall indirectly in terms of keeping the migrant groups from coming across.
So he did get a lot done in terms of transferring some of the cost to Mexico.
That really happened.
But nobody took that too seriously.
It wasn't a requirement, I don't think.
All right, moving on.
So I think I understand finally, because of the new revelations coming out about the coup attempt, the Russia collusion coup, where Brennan and Comey and all those characters, apparently, if we are to believe the documents we're seeing, I don't know how to interpret them other than A confirmation that there was literally a coup attempt.
I don't know how else to interpret it.
And I really, really tried hard in the beginning of this Russia collusion stuff, when people who were even more skeptical than I am, if that's possible, were saying, hey, from the very beginning, people were saying, hey, this looks like just a coup attempt.
It looks like some kind of organized coup.
And I said, if you remember, I said, No, let's cool down that talk.
I don't quite see any evidence of a coup.
Sure, lots of people didn't like the president.
There are people in jobs, and they can do little things that make his life hard.
But it's not some kind of organized, understood, explicit coup attempt.
I mean, that's just crazy.
Except that apparently it was.
Apparently it was exactly that.
It wasn't even sort of like that.
It wasn't suggestive of that.
It wasn't reminding you of that.
It was actually that, based on the documents that we've seen, especially the ones that just came out.
Now, if you understand that, and you understand that the latest documents are a little bit more damning to both Obama and Biden, meaning that apparently, if we're to believe what we see in the documents, it looks like President Obama was pretty deeply involved in something that looks exactly like a coup attempt.
And that means that Biden was involved because he was in the room.
He would have had to know about it.
Now, here's the thing. How do you explain that?
I feel as if you would agree with the following supposition.
That the leaders and the important people in the Democratic Party, they could kind of get anybody nominated they wanted, don't you think?
Don't you think that the old Clinton crowd and the Obama crowd and the deep state, you know, the Democrats, don't you think that the leadership of the party could kind of push things in whatever direction they wanted in terms of the nominee?
And you might have asked yourself, well, if that's the case, And they could make sort of anybody they wanted the nominee by, you know, controlling the media for one thing.
They can control the media coverage.
They can control the funding, probably.
They can control which advisors work for whom, etc.
So if you take my assumption that the people in charge do have the ability to create the nominee they want, Essentially manipulating the voters into voting for who they want.
Why would they choose Biden?
Because by any measure, he's the least capable candidate who has ever run for president.
I don't think you could find somebody who is less capable than Biden.
It's certainly not missing their gaze that they're running an incompetent.
That's pretty obvious at this point.
So why would they do it?
And the answer is to protect themselves.
Biden is the only person who was in the race for the nomination.
He's the only one who had the following quality.
He was just as guilty as the other people in the party.
He's part of, presumably, this is the speculation, right?
My speculation.
I think they needed him because he's both controllable and he has the same risk profile as they do.
So you could count on him to make all the investigations go away because he had the same risk.
I don't think there was anybody else in that category, was there?
Anybody else who would be as good a stooge as Biden to keep them out of jail?
So, now, when I say stuff like this, you should be saying to yourself, well, that's just about the biggest story.
There's never been a bigger story than this.
Watergate was a peanut compared to this.
What was as big as this?
Monica Lewinsky?
No. Tiny, tiny little problem.
There's nothing...
That I can think of in modern, you know, at least my lifetime.
I can't think of anything except maybe getting into the Iraq war the wrong way with bad information.
But this has got to be gigantic, enormous, biggest story of all time.
So let's look at the CNN homepage and see how they're covering the biggest story in the history of the United States.
Let's see. Nothing.
Nothing. Nothing.
Now, have you ever seen them just not cover a story?
Usually they'll at least put a line in there or say, well, something happened, but we're not going to talk about it.
Or, well, these...
These crazy conservatives, they're making some claims, but they're all wrong, so don't pay attention to them.
But have you ever seen them just go dark on the biggest story in the history of the United States?
Just not covering it.
What's that tell you?
It tells you they're complicit.
What else would it mean?
Why else would they not cover the biggest story in, again, the history of Of the United States.
There's no bigger story than this.
You know, wars maybe are bigger stories, but this is pretty big.
And if you wondered, hey, is CNN and the mainstream media, are they sort of complicit with whatever this coup thing was?
And I would say at this point, it's obvious.
You know, there's some claims that You have to be careful about making because you get into legal problems if you make a claim that can't be backed up.
So I'll just put it in the form of an opinion.
Based on what I've seen, a reasonable person would conclude there was an actual coup attempt.
Brennan was probably the leader, if not one of them, one of them or the leader.
And that CNN, at least, probably other media, We're 100% complicit.
What else could you interpret this as?
Now, I don't know what other entities are covering or not covering it, but keep an eye on that.
So here are some of the things that are coming out in these new drops.
And if I understand this right, this stuff's all too complicated for me, so I may be missing some details, but I believe it's true.
I believe it's true that the only reason we're learning about these new things is because the Flynn case wasn't dismissed.
Is that true? That we wouldn't have known this stuff except that they made the mistake of keeping the Flynn thing alive even after the prosecutor wanted to drop it?
I mean, what they're doing to Flynn should just be another crime.
I mean, it's just a crime, the way they're treating that guy.
I don't... So it looks to me like that's the only reason we would know this stuff, which is shocking in itself.
So here are some of the things we found out.
That one of the primary sources for the Steele dossier was suspected to be a Russian agent.
At the time.
At the time they put the dossier together and they were deciding what to do with it.
Even then, they knew...
They knew that...
The person who was a source was a suspected Russian spy.
Now, you'd think that they would mention that to, let's say, the courts or to anybody who needed to know.
Hey, just a heads up, we've got this information, but an important part of it comes from somebody we suspect is a Russian spy.
You leave that out, and you're not playing on Team America.
Wouldn't you agree? If you intentionally leave out that little fact, you're not really on Team America.
I don't know what team you're on, but it's not this country.
Apparently there's an agent who worked on the case, William Barnett, who believed at the time, and I guess presumably still does, that the whole thing was driven by a get-Trump attitude, which he actually had said at the time.
He didn't see the basis for the case.
It just looked like it was political to him.
Now, don't make too much out of that, because unfortunately, any work group, if you could actually talk to them privately and individually, any work group for any company, any organization, anywhere, You're going to find some people in the group who say, I don't know why we're even doing this.
It's all a big mistake. Are we doing this for all the wrong reasons?
So there's always that guy.
So if you're ranking what importance to put on these revelations, the fact that there was somebody on the team who thinks the whole thing was BS and shouldn't have been done, you want to believe that that's really meaningful, and maybe it is.
I'm not ruling it out.
I'm just saying that's one you've got to watch because you'll always get that guy.
There's always a disgruntled employee.
Look at all the whistleblowers who have stories about Trump.
You always have that guy.
So just keep in mind that that's on the lower end of credibility, but might be true.
At least it fits all the rest of the story.
All right. What else did we learn there?
Um, We learned that Brennan falsified the intelligence about Russia.
What? Now, if Brennan, he was head of CIA at that time, right?
So he put together this small team of five people, and the head of the team was somebody who was his personal friend, somebody he had control over.
They come up with a set of conclusions about Russia, And then Brennan tried to sell it to the country as 17 intel agencies agreed, when in fact it was a group of five, just five people, all in the CIA, and really one of them wrote it.
So really one person, and that one person was handpicked by Brennan, so really just Brennan.
So Brennan sold that his own analysis, which was not in agreement with other people in his own group, People in his group said, hey, you should include this part where we think there's a good chance that Putin actually prefers Hillary Clinton.
And the reason we think he might prefer Hillary Clinton is that she's predictable and she had already offered a reset.
So he knows what he's getting, but he doesn't know what he's getting with Trump at the time.
So Brennan chose to leave out the part Where his own people said, you know, we think Putin might actually prefer Hillary Clinton.
Is that a big deal?
Yeah, yeah. It's the biggest story in the history of the United States.
That's not a war.
It's the biggest story in the United States.
In my opinion, the head of the CIA literally falsifying Russian intel, according to what we've been told, For the purpose of overthrowing the United States government, the illegally elected government.
Now, weirdly, there might be no penalty for this.
Because how do you prosecute somebody for having a different opinion?
Because that's just what he could claim.
He could say, yeah, yeah, I saw the intel about Putin preferring Hillary Clinton, but in my opinion...
It was not worthy of including.
That's sort of the whole defense.
You really don't need much of a defense beyond, yeah, maybe I was wrong, but that was my opinion, and it was my job to have an opinion.
I think it's not exactly illegal to try to overthrow the government and fail.
So people operating at that level know how to stay outside the bounds of illegality while at the same time overthrowing the government or attempting to.
Now, since the penalty for that is probably zero, because there will always be reasonable doubt, what would you think the penalty should be if it were true and if it could be proven?
Hypothetically. What would be the appropriate penalty for a John Brennan if, hypothetically, it was found that he had actually tried to overthrow the government, and he did it by falsifying intelligence, essentially leaving out intelligence, which falsified it? I think the death penalty, right?
Should you not be subject to the death penalty for that crime?
Because I can't think of a bigger crime.
How could you do something worse?
Seems like a death penalty crime to me, but I'll bet there will be no penalty whatsoever.
So here's, I guess I just don't know what to do about the fact that it looks like what's going to happen is that conservative media will make a big deal about it.
But have you noticed that if conservative media is the only one that talks about something, it never becomes real to the rest of the world.
Right? So I believe that our siloed news has created this weird situation where somebody associated with the left could murder somebody on Fifth Avenue.
I just... Pick an example.
They could murder somebody on Fifth Avenue.
It could be recorded on 10,000 cameras, confirmed in every possible way that that's exactly what happened.
This person murdered this person in front of people, in front of a million cameras.
And if the entire left mainstream media decided just not to cover it, it wouldn't exist.
Even if the conservative media went crazy on it every day and it was headlines and couldn't stop talking about it, as long as the other side simply treats it like it doesn't exist, it actually doesn't exist.
We've reached the point where they can disappear reality.
Not just make facts disappear, not just leave out a detail, not get something wrong, not even fake news.
Actually disappear an entire chunk of reality while you're watching them do it.
That's where we're at.
Now, if you had told me that that was even possible, I might have said, well, in some weird theoretical way, But watching it happening is just blowing my freaking mind.
I mean, my head is just coming right off when I'm watching CNN literally just ignore it.
No, there was no coup attempt.
I don't know what you're talking about.
What else could they ignore?
What else could they ignore?
It's like they could ignore anything and just ignore it, and then it doesn't exist.
Here's a weird little story.
Kim Jong-un has issued an apology for killing some South Korean guy who tried to defect to the North.
What? The first thing you have to ask yourself is, why did somebody in South Korea try to defect to North Korea?
What the hell? Is there somebody in South Korea who hadn't done any reading about North Korea?
What did he think was going to happen when he went to North Korea?
Well, I'm going to have a good life up there in North Korea.
So apparently he was just drilled full of bullets and killed by the North Koreans because they didn't know what they had there.
It was just somebody that looked like was breaching their territory, so they killed him.
Kim Jong-un, and here's the weird part, issued an apology.
He issued an apology.
That's a pretty big deal.
Because you want North Korea to, let's say, enter the field of adult countries, if you will.
To just act like more of a citizen of the world.
And this is a small thing.
Because, you know, obviously the apology was warranted, but you still didn't expect it, right?
You would have more expected, yeah, it was an accident, but don't send your people across the border.
What the hell did you think was going to happen?
Or just not mention it, or something like that.
But apparently Kim Jong-un, assuming he's still alive, if he's still alive, thought that playing it more diplomatically was...
It was good. So that's a good sign.
But I have to ask you this question.
When was the last time we know we saw Kim Jong-un?
When was the last time we saw him alive?
Now, I realized that there was some video of him visiting someplace after people had been rumoring that maybe he had died.
So you remember a few months back there was a rumor he died, but then there was a video of him in public.
He looked healthy. So then the rumor just went away, sort of.
Not to me.
Not to me.
I'm not convinced.
He's still alive and or functioning.
He might be on machines or something.
But I'm not convinced he's alive.
Because we haven't seen live video, have we?
We've only seen recorded video.
And they probably have a vault full of recorded video of places he visited that they just didn't publish the video.
So they probably just pulled out something from the archive and said, here he is.
He's visiting this factory over here.
So totally alive. There is some evidence that his sister is gaining power, which might be a tell.
But this apology feels a little out of character.
But maybe not, because he is, you know, moving toward, you know, friendlier relations.
I would just keep an eye on it.
And I'm going to put it out there again that, well, here's your best clue.
Do you remember, I forget when it was, maybe a month or two ago, When President Trump tweeted with no prompting, there was nothing that triggered the tweet, he tweeted that Kim Jong-un is alive and well.
Do you remember that tweet?
It just came out of nowhere.
Nobody was accusing Kim Jong-un of being anything but alive, and the president just out of nowhere tweets, oh yeah, he's alive and well.
That felt very much like a favor for North Korea, didn't it?
A favor that would only have one purpose, which is to have friendly relationship with perhaps Kim Jong-un if he were to survive whatever hypothetical problem he had, or whoever takes over.
It may have been just a favor for the current or maybe the incoming administration, because it looked like it.
It was just a tweet out of nowhere.
It looked like there was some kind of a favor going on there.
So, just keep an eye on North Korea.
Alright, I did a little Twitter survey, and I asked people if their opinion of Black Lives Matter was improved or lessened.
Let's say their empathy.
Was there empathy for BLM more or less because of the events of 2020?
92% people who answered my unscientific poll, mostly conservatives, because if you're following me on Twitter, you probably are.
92% said that they have less empathy for Black Lives Matter.
Less empathy.
And here's my question.
What's the point of of Black Lives Matter.
Is the point of Black Lives Matter to convince themselves that Black Lives Matter?
I don't think so. I don't think they're talking to themselves.
Is the point of Black Lives Matter to convince progressives to change their mind about something?
Well, I don't think so, because the progressives are actually marching with them.
They're on the same side.
So who are they trying to convince, if anybody?
Well, I would think they would be trying to convince Conservatives, under the assumption that that's the group who needs to be convinced, then everybody would be on the same side, that some changes need to be made, and then they would work toward those changes.
But if 92% of the mostly conservatives who answered my unscientific poll said that they feel worse, you know, they have less empathy for Black Lives Matter, isn't that exactly the opposite direction?
That's not just missing the target.
That's running as hard as you can in the wrong direction while knowing it.
So here's the key part.
Do you think Black Lives Matter doesn't know it?
Do you think that they would be surprised to find out that rioting and looting is making them less popular?
Now, for anybody who's new here, Make an assumption that I'm not a freaking idiot, okay?
So when you hear me say something like Black Lives Matter rioting and looting, your brain should translate that into, yes, yes, yes, most people are just protesting peacefully.
I get it.
Most people, by the numbers, in terms of percentage of people, by far are protesting peacefully.
But they also are creating a The first few times you do it, maybe you just need to get something out of your system.
But if you do it every day, And the rioters and the looters are in your container every day.
Well, it's a bad container, and you're part of it.
So, who is Black Lives Matter trying to persuade if it's so obvious that they're doing the opposite of persuading?
Well, what if it's just the obvious?
What would be the most obvious interpretation of what you see?
If you saw Black Lives Matter say, we need these following changes, these are the changes we need, and then we were talking about them, and we were meeting about them, maybe there was some legislation about them, then I would say, okay, this is a solution-oriented movement.
This is a group of people who know what the problem is.
They've got a pretty good idea where the solutions lie, or where they could lie, or at least where it's worth trying.
You know, it's worth trying something.
And they're going to work on it, they're going to put up a trial, they're going to try to get some funding, try to get everybody on the same page, really make this world a better place.
Where's that? Is defund the police anything like a plan?
No. That's not even really trying to be a plan, because you would need way more than that.
So, what would be the most reasonable interpretation of a group That it has apparently no interest in solutions.
They sometimes talk about things got to be better, but without some detail about a solution, any kind of a leader who's putting together a task force, any kind of a document that everybody's rallying around, without any of that, what is this?
I can only give it one interpretation.
It's revenge.
It's just pure revenge.
And when I say revenge, I include envy.
You know, I had been a skeptic of the idea that income inequality would drive society apart.
Because I would say to myself, if everybody's doing better, why would they want to change that situation by killing the people who are doing extra good, knowing that it would make the whole system fall apart?
And I think the only conclusion that I can come to from all of this is that it's hard to have a difficult life while you're watching other people have a good life.
And you kind of hate them.
You know, I think back to my early days when I grew up and I guess my family would have been considered maybe lower middle class, something like that.
I think we would have called ourselves lower middle class.
And every day I would wake up, and there was a big window in the front of the living room, and looking out my window was a ski slope.
And the ski slope is where all the wealthy people came to ski.
So every day I would look at that ski slope and I would say, every one of those people coming down there, this is an exaggeration, but it felt like this, those people skiing over there, they all have a better life than I do.
How did we talk about those rich people?
Did we talk about them in glowing terms?
Because, you know, man, we sure do love those rich people who are over there having a great time while we're trying to get by.
No, we did not.
No, we did not. We spoke of them in somewhat dismissive terms, like there was something a little bit wrong with them.
For being rich and happy and successful.
Now, we weren't terrible about it.
I mean, we didn't think they should be hung or anything.
But we had a little bit of an attitude that just sort of comes with the fact that somebody is doing much better than you.
To me, it looks like Black Lives Matter, the movement, including the white folks who are the allies, if you will, the Antifa, it feels to me...
Like, these are people who are hating people who are doing better.
And that it's not a movement of equality per se.
It's far more a movement of revenge against people who are living good lives.
It looks revenge-y.
Now, I'm seeing in the comments somebody saying that they're bullies.
Well, I'm not sure bullying is quite exactly the right vibe, although that's the output of it.
So the The result of it certainly looks like bullying.
But in terms of the internal intentions, which are always difficult to discern because you can't read minds, but without solutions, it is obvious that it's not a solution-based movement.
I think that part we can conclude.
And remember...
It was blowing my mind when I was watching Van Jones talking about the Breonna Taylor situation.
And when you watch somebody who's clearly smart, he's got all the knowledge in the world about the situation, there's no gaps in his understanding whatsoever, and then I watch him realize that the story wasn't what it had been reported earlier.
In other words, it wasn't Police killing somebody because they were black.
Rather, it was just an accident.
Tragic, stupid, terrible accident.
Shouldn't have happened. You can say lots of bad stuff about it.
It's all true. But it was an accident.
Now, what should have been the reasonable response to someone who had, let's say, legitimate feelings about police brutality, But they had been triggered by, at least lately, triggered by this event.
And then find out that event was not what they thought it was.
What would they do if they were a legitimate movement who wanted solutions?
Well, I think they would have said, okay, we were wrong about that one.
But there's still plenty to talk about.
And sorry, we missed that one.
You know, you can see why we missed it.
They made errors when When they killed her, maybe we made some errors when we interpreted it, but let's not get hung up on that.
We got lots of other stuff to talk about that's bad.
Let's talk about that.
Let's just let that one go.
But that didn't happen.
Instead, they doubled down.
They doubled down on the thing that we can all see the same information, and it just wasn't relevant to the complaint.
The only thing that makes sense, since they don't care about the facts of the case, And they don't care about solutions.
It only makes sense, and even Van Jones sort of talked about it as an emotional pain, which seems to be fairly a widespread feeling, that there's actual pain that they're experiencing by, I guess, the fullness of the entire situation, including their entire lives.
In fact, Van Jones was saying, That he was getting sick and tired, if I can paraphrase it right, that in his own life experience, and you would expect him to have more of a favored experience because he's talented, smart, good-looking, successful.
You'd expect that his life would look pretty good compared to most people.
But even he said that pretty much it's a daily experience.
Wait. You know, racism is like a daily pain that never goes away.
It's just always there.
It's just following you all day long.
And while I wouldn't deny that that feeling is true, I have no reason to question that even a little, what does that make you do?
Have you ever been angry and lashed down at somebody?
Has anger ever caused you to be mean to somebody We just didn't deserve it.
Yeah, yeah, that's what it does.
That's what anger does.
It causes you to be angry, and it causes you to be mean to other people.
So I feel like we need to stop pretending that this is about solutions, and we need to stop pretending it's about making the world a better place, because it so clearly is not.
And if any of these people ever wanted to do any of those things, Talk about solutions, talk about how to make it a better place.
I feel like there would be plenty of people to help them.
Remember when the George Floyd thing first happened, and I and lots of other people made this observation, this was the one time when the whole country was on the same side.
What should have happened if people wanted solutions, then the black community should have said some version of this.
Do you see what we mean now?
The white community, having seen the George Floyd video, would have said, as I did, and many people said, oh, I get it now.
I wasn't quite seeing what you were saying, but now we've watched this video and I totally get it now.
Now, it turns out fentanyl was part of the story, so even that was fake news.
But at the time... All white people were on their side.
All white people. I mean, it was just universal.
You saw that video and you said, oh, whoa, whoa, whoa.
Whatever we thought before, this is different.
Like, this just puts you on the same page.
Like, okay, I get it now.
We've got to figure out how to make this never happen again.
But that didn't happen.
Instead of being on the same side, we were treated like the enemy.
When white people were saying, I really want help.
Like, this is real.
I seriously, legitimately want to help.
Now you're the enemy?
How am I the enemy if I want to help?
Legitimately and seriously.
So I'm going to completely disregard BLM and Antifa as any kind of a positive movement in society.
We have to treat them like they're a revenge movement.
And then what do you do?
What do you do if you finally correctly diagnose the problem?
And the problem is that revenge is what they're trying to accomplish.
Well, they're going to have to get revenge.
You know, the one way that this could be I won't say solved, but you could take some of the energy out of it.
Black people are going to have to get revenge.
And if it's not presented as some kind of a package, hey, this will hurt us, so how about we do this because it'll hurt us.
We'll take some pain if you'll stop protesting.
I don't know how you could package that up.
I don't know any practical way to do that.
So, My guess is that the way this goes is that there will be a bunch of white people, probably police, who just get killed, just get slaughtered.
And that the number of white people who are killed, and you saw this happen in Louisville, right?
Two police officers were shot in what looked like just a targeted sniper attack.
I don't see any other way this goes.
I think it goes to some amount of of slaughter of police officers, probably of various colors, and white people.
I think death is probably the only way to get the emotion out of it, so that even the black public who support BLM by and large, you have to get to the point where even they say, whoa, that's not exactly what I signed up for.
I wanted less systemic racism, I wanted less danger from the police.
I wasn't signing up for killing white people.
That's too far.
I'm out. Probably has to get there.
Otherwise, it can't ever be resolved.
But if we think it has anything to do with solutions or legislation, I think we can rule that out now.
It feels like that could be completely ruled out.
I said in a tweet yesterday that I'm no political campaign expert.
But isn't it suspicious that Biden doesn't know his campaign schedule a day in advance?
Because it seems to me that if you're going to put a lid on your entire day, you would know that yesterday, wouldn't you?
Are they so unorganized, they don't know what Biden should be doing today?
They have to wake up and it's like nine in the morning and they're like, all right, well, I guess there wasn't anything public on the schedule, so we'll put a lid on it.
It feels way more like they have to see how he's doing.
Doesn't it? It feels more like they wake up in the morning and they say, alright, has anybody checked on Joe yet?
And they talk to, you know, I'm just imagining this, but they talk to Jill and they say, How's he doing?
Is he okay this morning?
And then Jill says one of two things.
I think he's doing okay.
Let's go ahead with the schedule.
Or she says, I don't know, he's a little slow this morning.
We better put a lid on it.
I feel like that's what's happening.
If there's another explanation for why the lid would be put on at the last minute instead of knowingly in advance, I'd like to hear it.
Are you also wondering why there are no insider leaks in the Biden campaign?
Isn't that a little suspicious?
Don't you think that there are conversations in the Biden campaign about things that would be embarrassing if they came out?
There are probably conversations about how they deal with their progressive wing, that if anybody heard about those conversations, that would be news.
There are Certainly are conversations about Biden's, let's say, his mental acuity and even his general health.
You know those conversations are happening because you can see with your own eyes that he has days that he's better than other days.
So obviously they're talking about it behind the closed doors.
But nobody, except for this one, except for 4chan, So acknowledging that there are insider leaks allegedly on 4chan, what I'm talking about is why they're completely missing in the New York Times.
Where is the Washington Post story about the insider and the Biden campaign who says, you know, this is what they're talking about in the campaign.
It's kind of missing, right?
Am I being crazy here?
Or is it obviously missing?
Because there are tons of insiders who are willing to narc on Trump for any number of real or imagined things.
But there's nobody, nobody on the Biden campaign is willing to do a little whisper-whisper to a journalist.
I'm not buying it.
What I believe is that insiders probably have talked to the press.
And I believe that the press is just not running the stories.
That's my belief. I don't know if it's true, but I don't know why else there would be no insider stories in the major press, that is.
What would happen under the condition that the election is not deemed credible?
Now, I know that there's a constitutional series of steps.
Let's say it goes to the Supreme Court, but the country is still not happy with whatever they come up with.
I know there's the part where Nancy Pelosi could become president if things aren't sorted out by certain dates.
So I know the Constitution has some steps.
But suppose, because it's 2020, you know, in 2020 nothing's clean, but suppose that despite all the well-described steps for solving this stuff, the country is just not convinced we had a real election.
What if 40% of the country, 30%, pick a number, At the end of it, say, you know, I don't trust the result.
I just don't trust the result.
What would happen? Well, let me put this thought into the public mind.
If it's a tie, the tie goes to the incumbent.
Because it has to.
Now, not if it's a second term, you know, not if it's the end of a second term, right?
If a president served two terms, that's a different situation.
But in the situation where you've got a president who has served one term, is running for re-election, if we don't have a clean result, you have to default to the incumbent.
Now, yes, I would say the same thing if the incumbent were a Democrat.
Same situation, just reverse the party, and I will still be consistent.
You have to go with the incumbent If you don't get a clean result.
Now, if at the end of the eight years, then you're going to have to bring in somebody new one way or the other.
But you just got to go.
Ty has to go to the runner because that would be the most stable situation.
And anything less than that would be so destabilizing.
I don't think it would be worth it.
And I say that, again, regardless of which party is involved.
You just can't. Inject that much uncertainty into the system and hope that it is free.
PBS did a fascinating experiment that should scare the hell out of you.
And it showed how easily brains can be hacked.
And I think it was Hacking Your Mind was the name of the special.
And so what PBS did was they primed people before asking them for their voting preferences.
And the way they primed them was half of the people got just generic information that had no emotional content.
And then they said, all right, who do you vote for?
Then they give them some dry, unemotional information.
And then they check later and they say, okay, now who do you vote for?
And what topics do you favor now?
The people who just got dry, boring information had the same opinion afterwards.
As they had before. So you might ask yourself, what kind of information could you give somebody that would fairly instantly change their voting preferences?
Is that such a thing?
And if there was such a thing, would it be true?
In other words, could you give somebody information that's unambiguously just true and it instantly changes their voting preferences?
Yup. Because they did it.
They did it. They instantly changed people's voting preferences.
Instantly meaning in a few hours.
They changed people's voting preferences.
Here's the information they gave them.
They had only white voters, so they started with just a white group of voters, and they gave them the information that white people were becoming a minority in the United States, which is factually true in the sense that The population of white people is dipping below 50% of the total population.
Having primed a bunch of people who were voting sort of left-leaning ways, people who were, let's say, against the wall, once they were told that their group was the implication is threatened because, well, your power is going to be decreased because now you're going to be under 50% and shrinking.
As soon as white people were told that their power was decreasing, their numbers were no longer a majority, they voted conservative.
Suddenly, they wanted a wall.
Suddenly, they voted for a whole range of conservative things that two hours earlier they wouldn't have voted for.
Instant change.
Now, remember I've told you that persuasion It's not all equal.
There are some things far more persuasive than other things.
Facts are usually not persuasive.
But fear is. Fear is persuasive.
In fact, nothing is more persuasive than fear.
So the way the information was presented to these groups of white people in the experiment was that there was something to be afraid of.
And I believe they tried to see if they could soften it By just changing the way they described the same set of facts.
So if they describe the set of facts of, hey, you know, white people are becoming a minority, but if they softened it and said, but it won't make any difference to your life because what matters is education level and the non-white population is, you know, far more educated than it's ever been before and improving every day.
They've got good jobs.
Everything's going to be great.
Melting pot. We're good.
So, they can actually keep the votes the way they were originally, left-leaning, simply by the way they described a fact.
If they described it just objectively, people were scared to death, and they voted accordingly, and if they fixed the data by couching it and, ah, don't worry about this, you know, there's nothing to worry about, their votes didn't change.
Somebody says, as a master persuader, you are not surprised.
No, I was not surprised that a fear that is this direct would have an impact.
I was a little surprised, although I shouldn't have been, because the book Persuasion says this pretty much exactly, that the entire range of conservative opinions changed.
Things that had nothing to do with being white or not white, even those things...
Ended up being influenced.
So that was even more dramatic than I would have expected, I think.
Even though the science suggests that that would be the case.
Somebody says, the left doesn't want a melting pot in unity.
They want destruction and division.
Well, I would not align with that.
I don't think that anybody wants destruction.
What they want is what comes after the rebuilding.
Or they're just angry.
And they're just jealous.
They're just... They just are full of hate.
And I think that explains it better.
There's videos of black Antifa beating up white Antifa members.
All right. Well, I'm sure there will be more infighting among the protesters.
Yes, did you all see the Crenshaw ad?
So, Representative Crenshaw, Texas.
Did a campaign ad that has such high production values, it looks like a trailer for a bad action movie.
Now, they did it kind of campy, so they weren't trying to make it look too serious.
It was all tongue-in-cheek.
But man, was it a high production value.
It's probably one of the best campaign ads you'll ever see, just in terms of quality of production and stuff.
And it did make you feel good.
You actually felt something when you watched it.
And you liked all the people in it.
It made you like them and it was good.
It was a little awkward with the male-female part of how they handled it.
The problem that they had when they made the video, apparently, is that it started out with several ex-military people who were running as Republicans and they were men.
So the men who were first introduced were ex-military And so they were presented as awesome fighters and stuff.
But there were two women that they wanted to include, part of the Republican family of candidates, who did not have military experience.
So they tried to make them seem awesome too.
It was a little cringeworthy, but they did the best they could.
Still, I would say that they did a great job on it.
It was very fun and it was very viral, so I think they had all the right notes.
Yes, I'm hearing from a number of people who really liked my Hold My Beer video that Jack Murphy was tweeting the other day.
I'm surprised that that didn't get wider play because the people who saw it seemed to like it a lot.
By the way, I'm getting lots of ideas from people who are I'm only interested in If it's cheaper and better than regular houses.
If it's just cheaper, but way worse, I have no interest in it.
So don't send me anything like that.
I don't care about these little small homes.
I don't care about factory-built homes.
None of that is interesting to me.
Because they're not better.
They're just cheaper. It's got to be cheaper and better.
I think we can get there.
All right. How to break the news silo, somebody says.
Pop music says.
Well, I don't know that you can.
If I could come up with a way, I would certainly do it.
I've been asked often, as you might imagine, how can you beat Trump derangement syndrome?
How do you unprogram somebody?
And I think the answer is you really can't do it unless you're one-on-one.
If you give me somebody one-on-one, I could work on them.
Maybe I could convert one person if I spend all afternoon.
But I don't know if there's a mass way to do it, except that PBS experiment I told you.
The PBS experiment would change your vote, but I don't know if it would cure your TDS. Somebody says, Dwell Magazine has some great designs for small structures.
No, they don't.
So that's what I was warning you about.
If you look in Dwell Magazine or pretty much any place that talks about smaller structures, they're just worse.
They're just worse. It's got to be better than a regular house.
It's got to be better.
That's the only thing I'm interested in.
And there's no reason it can't be.
All right. Yes, the Amy Comey Barrett announcement, if she's the one, it's starting to sound like she will be one.
Oh, somebody says that the tiny home pickup truck idea rests on SIPs, S-I-P's.
They're structurally integrated panels.
So they're like big chunks of things that you can easily build things with.
I just saw an Australian company, somebody sent me on LinkedIn, a link to a company that builds walls and solar panels.
So they frame it with a metal structure, and I guess the metal structure parts, two people can assemble themselves.
But the outside of the home is mostly solar panels.
And they actually figured out how to make solar panels.
Wait for this. This is cool.
Plywood now costs more than a solar panel.
So if you had a choice of making your home with a wall of plywood or just using a solar panel that wasn't even hooked up to the grid, the solar panel would be cheaper.
For the same physical square footage, a solar panel is cheaper than plywood.
Now, that was the claim I just read from a company that's making these things.
And they figured out how to get the solar panels structurally hard enough using the metal backing, the metal frame, that they just build the outside of the wall with solar panels.
So I'm not sure if that idea is less expensive, but it's interesting.
