Episode 1338 Scott Adams: Learn About the Massive Brainwashing Operations Directed at You Right Now. Freaky Stuff.
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Biden poll rated poor on economy and immigration?
8 cultures accept, respect more than 2 genders
AOC explains Israel and Palestine issue
Filling gaps in President Trump's wall
China warns US not to boycott Olympics
Chinese agents Tweet exchange with me
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Come on in. It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams, the best time of the day.
Once again, it's going to be incredible.
Well, if you'd like it to be really even better than that, all you need is a cover mugger who has a tanker, 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.
The dopamine hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And wow, it's going to be good.
Go! It was everything I hoped it would be.
I hope it was good for you, too.
Well, I may have told you that I was going to get my vaccination yesterday, but I'm bad with calendars.
It turns out it's today, and I'm scheduled for later this afternoon.
Now, I told you my strategy would be that I wouldn't make a decision about getting it or not until the last minute, and that way I'd have as much information as possible.
Well, because the simulation hates me, The news decided to serve up today, the same day that I'm scheduled to get a vaccination.
Today, the news served up all kinds of scary news about vaccinations, followed by a number of people who...
Helpfully weighed in and sent me messages saying how painful it was after the second shot and how it just laid him out for a day.
I've never heard more bad news about a vaccination in 24 hours than the 24 hours before I need to make a decision.
And I gotta tell you, I'm on the bubble.
An hour before I'm supposed to go, you know, because I need some drive time, I'm going to decide.
And I've got to say that as of this moment, I haven't.
You know, it's scheduled.
And if later today I decide to do it, I'll do it.
But I've got to say, today was the scariest of all the days.
And it had to happen today, of all days.
Is that a coincidence? I wonder.
Remember I told you that when we heard that Tiger Woods The cause of his crash would be revealed.
What did I tell you was really going to happen?
The cause of his crash would not be revealed.
I knew there would be a report, but I quite accurately deduced that it would be bullshit.
And it was. So here's the mystery we don't know.
According to the so-called black box from the car, he had his accelerator all the way down, Including when he left the road and all the way across, I don't know, a field or a forest or whatever until his car was no longer functional.
Now some people said it's because he was speeding.
Speeding doesn't make you stay on the gas after you've left the road for a long time.
It wasn't speeding.
Now some people say, but Scott, he made that mistake people make Of thinking he was hitting the brake, but he hit the gas instead.
May I remind you that this isn't you.
This isn't me.
This is the most famously skilled and coordinated human that civilization has ever produced.
If he doesn't know how to drive a car after all this time, I'm going to be really surprised.
So I don't know what the cause of the crash is, which is my point, but I feel as though the odds that Tiger Woods doesn't know how to drive well is the lowest of the possibilities.
Of all the possibilities, it feels like the smallest one.
Hey, Tiger Woods, he's not coordinated.
And under pressure, he'll do the wrong thing.
Is there anybody in the history of the planet who has performed under pressure more than he has?
I mean, the official speculations are ridiculous.
So we don't know the reason, but I would say one thing that seems obvious is that unless it was some kind of mechanical malfunction that's not obvious, that he was unconscious.
Anybody who thinks it was a suicide attempt, that's dumb.
It wouldn't be the way you would do it.
Anybody who said he fell asleep, I don't know that that would explain keeping your foot on the pedal the whole time, would it?
Seems like the first thing you do is take your foot off of everything when you woke up.
So I don't think he was asleep.
But he might have passed out or been unconscious for some reason.
I would like to give some advice to the Instagram scammers.
If you use Instagram, especially if you're male, you probably get many messages every day from fake accounts.
There's some, you know, female picture and they're following you or commenting or they want to DM you or something.
And I would say maybe a third of Probably a third of my followers are obviously not real on Instagram.
They're just men who have taken a photo of a woman and they're pretending to be this woman.
But I have some advice to the scammers.
If you're trying to DM me with a message request, with your little scam, it's better if you don't use for your fake picture a picture of my wife.
Because that keyed me off immediately.
I looked at it and said, huh, there's a picture of my wife.
I'll bet that's not a real account.
So that's my advice.
Don't send me a picture of my wife when you're trying to scam me.
Because I'm going to be onto that right away.
Right away. Christina gets her...
Her photo gets used in just countless scams.
We get email all the time from somebody who said, damn it, why did you take my money for three years and say you were going to marry me?
It wasn't her.
But there's a lot of that going on.
All right, Rasmussen is reporting in their recent polling.
That Biden is getting poor marks for the economy and immigration.
So for his handling of economic issues, 46% rated him poor.
Now it's important to know what the other options were.
Could it have been fair, good, or excellent?
Now, poor is a pretty big statement for somebody who's only been around two months.
But 46% I think he's doing a poor job.
And I would think that more people would have said fair and good, you know, give him a little honeymoon period, but that's pretty bad.
At the same time, he gets 50% poor handling of immigration, which also seems high to me for a Democrat.
But here's the funny part.
Wouldn't you say those would be two pretty big issues, the economy and immigration?
So he's doing poorly on those things and yet he's very popular.
Why is he so popular if he's doing poorly according to something close to half of the country on such critical issues?
And I have a hypothesis.
And my hypothesis goes like this.
I have to admit I feel better under President Biden.
Now let me explain that Let me explain that before you flip out.
When I say I feel better, I mean, I don't have any stress.
I feel as though there are still big problems in the world, but I don't feel any stress.
You know, what Biden promised us was to be boring.
I mean, that was actually a main part of his sales pitch, was that he would be boring and traditional and he wouldn't cause controversies.
I'm gonna say he pulled that off.
Does anybody disagree?
If we're being objective, you know, don't take sides for a moment.
Just be perfectly objective.
He promised us he would be boring, and that it would be a good result.
He's pulling it off.
He is very boring, and I feel better.
Now, I still would prefer a President Trump for getting stuff done.
I think he'd be better against China.
I think he's better on immigration, better on the economy, better on the Middle East.
You know, I could go on. Well, he doesn't do great on health care.
I don't think Trump nailed that.
And, you know, I have my problems about the capital insurrection, blah, blah, blah.
So you can have your pluses and your minuses.
I would still prefer Trump for getting stuff done.
But it's still nonetheless true that Biden delivered on this promise of being boring.
And... My stocks are up.
My net worth is higher under Biden than it was under Trump.
It's just a fact.
I'm not going to lie about a fact.
My net worth is the highest it's ever been.
The highest it's ever been.
Under Biden. Now the rules say that he gets some credit for that, right?
Even if he didn't do anything. The person in charge gets some credit.
It just works that way. Alright, we'll criticize him later to make you feel better.
Here's something I learned today on Twitter that was fascinating.
Now, I know you want to make more of this, like, to fit it into the political argument about transgenders and sports and stuff like that, but let's leave that alone for a moment, right?
Let's just take the politics out just for a moment.
So, just some information...
Remove the politics from your mind for a moment.
Did you know that in eight different cultures, meaning eight different countries in this case, that male and female gender binaries aren't really the only options?
Apparently in eight different cultures...
People who are born one gender but choose to live as either an ambiguous gender, almost like a third gender or something, or just live outright the way they want to live, identifying as one but looking like another.
And it turns out that there are eight different cultures in which they're not only completely accepted, but in some cases respected.
And actually revered or honored or whatever's the right word.
Now, I'm not going to tell you that's good or bad.
I feel like it's good.
But I don't mean to influence your opinion on this topic.
Everybody just make up their own mind.
This is one of those, if you're not talking about what the law should be, just make up your own mind how you feel about any of this.
But in my opinion, it's positive.
It's positive that people get to live their choice of life.
Every time I see somebody living their personal choice without being bothered by society or government, I'm happy about it.
I'm happy about it.
So, I hope you could be too.
Did you see the video of AOC trying to explain the Israel and Palestinian situation?
It's totally worth looking for it.
I think it's in my Twitter feed from yesterday.
So if you scroll down, you'd see it.
Or just Google AOC tries to explain Israel or the Middle East or something.
It'll pop right up. It is funny.
Because apparently she had nothing to say in terms of any kind of a point...
That would be worth saying in public.
But it didn't stop her from talking for a long time.
So the minutes of talking pass with just babble.
And you have to watch it to see how much of a train wreck it is.
Now, of course, I've angered many of you by telling you for several years now that AOC is one of the most gifted, persuasive politicians I've seen.
I'm starting to change my mind just based on this.
If she can't do better than that, talking about a complicated topic, I think there might be a cap on her potential, and I'm definitely rethinking things I've said about her probably being president in the future.
When I saw that answer, I thought to myself, wow, you are not ready for presidency, that's for sure, but maybe someday.
She has lots of native talent, it just didn't come out in that.
There's a study that says that one in three COVID-19 survivors, in a study of more than 230,000 people, so it's a big study, mostly Americans, were diagnosed with a brain or psychiatric disorder within six months of having COVID, suggesting the pandemic could lead to a wave of mental and neurological problems.
And then further they drilled down a little bit and the main things that people were complaining about were anxiety, 17% of them had that, and mood disorders at 14%.
Now apparently the number of people in this group was far greater than the number of people in the general population.
So therefore they think there's something going on here.
Now there's no known connection in terms of the physics of it or the chemistry.
Nobody knows how having COVID would necessarily change your brain, you know, afterwards.
But you have to worry, right?
You've got to worry. Here's my question.
One in three were diagnosed within six months of having psychiatric problems.
But nothing like schizophrenia or something like that.
More like anxiety and mood disorders.
How far is that from the baseline?
That's my question.
Is one-third of people having, let's say, mental, psychological problems during a pandemic when they just had to social isolate and their life was turned upside down by having COVID? They just went through, in some cases, a near-death experience.
It feels to me...
That I don't trust this as really telling us anything.
I mean, it's certainly a red flag, so we should look into it further.
But on initial reports, Seth Rowe is saying, don't take the vaccination today because you've lost too many things and don't want to lose me.
Well, I think you paid too much for that point, but I do appreciate it very much.
And I haven't decided, but it's unlikely I'll die from it.
I mean, I don't think that.
That's pretty remote.
So we'll see. Anyway, I don't know if these mental disorders are above the baseline.
I really don't.
Because I think people are flipping out just all day long because of just the whole situation.
And if you had certainly gone through some scary, scary PTSD situation where you actually had the virus and maybe it affected you quite a bit...
I can see why that would put you into a therapist's office.
So I don't know that it's the virus that's causing it.
It might be the situation that's causing it.
So that would be my one curiosity about this.
Well, as you know, the Biden administration has decided that they might want to fix some of those gaps in the wall.
Oh, not build the wall. Building the wall would be evil.
Instead, they're going to fill the gaps, totally different than building a wall, which is, one might explain, as being a process of filling gaps.
So it's not like a wall that fills gaps.
Rather, it's completely different.
It's filling the gaps in the wall.
And I think that explains it.
But Joel Pollack writes in Breitbart today that Bret Stephens, who's a never-Trumper columnist in the New York Times, he just published a column in which he calls upon Joe Biden to finish Trump's wall along the southern U.S. border.
Now, of course, Bret is not a Democrat, but still we're seeing a never-Trumper saying...
You know, maybe Trump wasn't that bad.
So this has been my prediction that we're going to see more and more of this, that Trump will be redeemed on a number of areas.
It just takes some time.
I want to tell you that I've had a number of press requests lately.
So members of the press, several of them, have contacted me lately and said, can we talk to you about something?
I've decided that I can't think of any reason I would ever talk to the press again, unless I was promoting a book, right, and we're talking about the book, or something about me.
But can you think of any good reason that I should ever talk to the press about a political topic?
Because what would happen?
Do you think there's any chance that a political reporter would report what I said in proper context?
I don't think there's any chance.
Why would you put yourself in that position?
Because there's nothing I could gain from it.
I mean, I could tweet my opinions all day long and get them out there.
I know enough people watch my tweets.
I'm not at any shortage for audience.
And so I thought, it just doesn't make sense anymore because the press has become so illegitimate that regardless of what you say about any one reporter being honest and capable, you just can't take that chance anymore.
It makes no sense to let a reporter quote you because you know it's going to be a misquote and then there's nothing you can do.
It just makes no sense.
So, something interesting is happening.
We're getting to the good stuff now.
You ready for the good stuff?
This is why you come.
All right. We're going to ease into it.
All right? You ready? So begins your journey behind the curtain.
So China is hosting, allegedly, the Winter Olympics for 2022.
And apparently China has warned Washington not to boycott the Winter Olympics because I guess they're worried that that might be one option.
To which I say, I don't think boycotting is exactly the right play, but I'll tell you what is.
I don't think this will necessarily be done, but here's another example where if Trump were president, this would be done.
So what I say next, just understand that because You, the public, elected Biden.
This play is unavailable to you.
But Trump would have done it.
I mean, I feel confident he would have done this.
And here's the idea. Tell China we won't boycott the Olympics unless they don't end their fentanyl death attack on the United States.
You just make it simple.
There's one thing we want.
Stop sending fentanyl to the United States like you promised, but never happened.
We gave you the names of the fentanyl dealers.
Just go round them up.
And then we would be happy to attend your Olympics.
It would feel like, hey, you did something for us.
Step in the right direction. We'll do something for you.
I mean, it's for us, too. It's the Olympics.
But at least it would be polite.
And maybe we'll get some movement forward into a better relationship.
Do you see how well that would work?
China would not be able to even address the question without admitting that they're attacking the United States with fentanyl.
They don't want this topic to be in the news.
So what you do is you tie it to their frickin' Olympics.
See where I'm going with this?
Once you tie those stories together, their Olympics are fuckin' dead.
Just like the people they killed with their fentanyl.
Now, I'm not saying we should boycott the Olympics.
You know, there are lots of considerations here.
But I sure wouldn't go if they're still sending us fentanyl.
And let me go further.
I know there are athletes who have trained all their lives, and certainly their careers and livelihoods and everything else depend on doing well in these Olympics.
I feel as if attending the Olympics would be no different than attending Nazi Germany Olympics, given the situation.
I feel it would be no different than attending the Olympics in Iran while they're nuking the United States.
They're not yet, but you know what I mean.
So if you're an athlete, you're in a tough situation, but I can't say I would respect anybody who attended the Olympics there.
I couldn't respect that.
I understand it.
I understand it. I mean, I'm not going to boycott any athlete who goes.
Because if you work your whole life for an Olympics, it's kind of unfair to ask you not to go.
But I've got to tell you, I wouldn't respect you.
I wouldn't have any respect for anybody who attended the Chinese Olympics.
The Olympics in China.
So a Chinese agent on Twitter, I'll just call him that, because Twitter labeled his tweets...
China state-affiliated media.
Now, I love the fact, yeah, somebody's saying in the comments that I don't believe Biden's even mentioned I don't believe he's mentioned fentanyl, has he?
Hasn't even mentioned it.
Yeah. So this fellow on Twitter, who's obviously affiliated with the Chinese government, and we assume that he's working for them directly or indirectly, and he replied to President Biden's tweet, in which trains were mentioned, and this...
Chinese may be an agent, but at least he's state affiliated.
He tweets this.
He goes, talking about trains, President Biden may want to send a team to China to study how China built its magnificent high-speed rail system in a matter of 10 to 20 years.
There is so much for win-win cooperation if U.S. abandons its containment strategy that will make both poorer.
Now, that does sound exactly like it came from the Chinese government, doesn't it?
So after that, when he said how well China did building their high-speed rail system so quickly, I tweeted back just two words.
Slave labor? Well, I don't think he could let that sit, so he responded back to me.
He said, you have never been to China?
Question mark. The slave labor only happened when the U.S. used Chinese laborers to build the Pacific Railroads more than 100 years ago.
Zing! And enslaved many African Americans.
Zing! He said, I had an African American host family in Detroit who never forgets this part of history.
Well, thank you for the incorrect history lesson, because I saw some people in China questioning the The fact that the Chinese laborers were slaves, but I do imagine that it wasn't far from it.
Not technically slaves, but maybe not that far from it in practical terms.
So I responded to his question, have you ever visited China?
And I said I'd love to visit your famous Uyghur training facilities to see how China gets things done.
Can you also give me a tour of the fentanyl production facilities that killed George Floyd and my stepson?
I don't believe he's responded after I sent that.
Because I feel that maybe he fucked with the wrong person.
Didn't quite realize it when he did it.
May have realized it after the second tweet.
But let me tell you, if you want to have a conversation with me in public, it's going to go this way every time.
It's never going to end well for China.
So please, China, send your tweets my way.
I would like to engage with you on any level you'd like.
So that was 600,000 people who just learned about China.
So good work there, Chinese agent.
You just made China a little less popular.
Speaking of Chinese popularity, a 2020 Chicago survey, so this is last year, but it said that on a measure from zero to one, Where they were measuring American views of China.
So zero would be a very unfavorable view, and 100 would be the best.
Apparently we've hit an all-time low of 32.
So, since the last several years, the American view of China has gone to its all-time low.
Do you remember what I told you I would do in 2018?
I told you I'd make their popularity go to an all-time low.
Now, I don't take credit for it.
We had this large orange person named Trump who said a lot of things about China, as did Gordon Chang and Kyle Bass and Tom Cotton and lots of other people.
So a lot of people have been pushing in the same direction, and Apparently successfully.
Apparently successfully.
Because China is now less popular than it has ever been.
You're welcome.
So CNN is reporting in an opinion piece that not many people want to be a Republican at the moment.
It says the party's brand is quite clearly damaged after four years of Donald Trump Seeking to break every political norm possible.
I think this was Chris Salisa's opinion piece.
Now, what do you think of this statement?
The party's brand, talking about Republicans, the party's brand is quite clearly damaged after four years of Donald Trump seeking to break every political norm possible.
It feels as if when he says after, that he's implying causation.
Do you think that the causation is right?
Do you think that the party's brand is damaged because of Trump?
Is that what damaged it?
Do you think? Or, I'm just going to put that out there, could it be the way they covered him?
Because it would be pretty easy to imagine that they had covered him differently.
That the brand would be fine.
So the thing that people don't quite realize, and I know you do because my audience is smarter than the norm, but the public doesn't quite realize that the news business, let's take CNN as an example, has this weird power that only your boss at work has.
Only your boss at work can cause a problem himself or herself or they-self And blame it on you.
Because the boss has the ability to cause a problem and then assign blame for the problem to an underling.
That's not a good situation, especially if you're the underling.
But CNN has the same ability.
They can cause a problem and then assign it to somebody.
That's what they just did.
They created the problem of the brand of Republicans going down.
They did that. They did all of that.
Now, of course, Trump gave them some material to work with.
That's not irrelevant, right?
But do you think the objective coverage of the president would have resulted in a worse brand for Republicans?
I don't think so.
I don't think so.
So there it is.
CNN is gaslighting the...
I hate to use that term...
But they're brainwashing the public into believing that they are the observer of the problem, not the cause of it, when so clearly they're the cause of it.
And most of the public will buy this interpretation that Trump did this.
It's amazing. All right.
I've been telling some people online, much to their chagrin, That whatever they believe about the Floyd situation and the Chauvin, Chauvin, whatever it is, trial, I said that they were brainwashed to believe what they believe.
And people said, Scott, Scott, Scott, I saw the video with my own eyes.
I saw it. I looked right at it.
Not only did I look at it and come up with my own completely independent opinion based on the video, but may I point out that there are other police officials, police officials, and other experts who also saw the video and agree with me.
Therefore, Scott, there's nothing else to say about this trial.
We all saw the video.
Boom! Case closed.
Floyd was murdered by Shevin.
That's what they say.
What they don't realize is that those opinions didn't come from them.
It feels like they did.
Because everybody believes they make up their own mind.
But anybody who trained in persuasion can see that those are assigned opinions.
The media assigns opinions.
It doesn't report the news.
It tells you what your opinion is, and it assigns it.
How did they do it in the George Floyd case?
Well, they did it by the way they talked about the video.
If you prime somebody to say, what you're going to see is terrible, it appears that this police officer is murdering somebody, and the crowd's trying to stop him, and we don't think drugs are part of it, Right?
Once you've been primed, that's all you see.
And people don't realize they've been primed.
They just think that there was some coverage.
People talked about it.
Then they watched it.
And then they believe that their own little brain came up to an opinion.
Nothing like that happened.
And anybody who's trained in persuasion and psychology, hypnosis, they will all agree with me, by the way, There's nobody who would disagree with this who has training in the field.
This would be completely agreeable.
So, all these people who think they have an opinion that they came up with?
Nope. And this is true of most of our stories.
Most of our stories are assigned opinions.
Now, people are going to say, Scott, Scott, Scott.
What about all those crazy right-wing things that people believe?
What about that? Are you leaving out all the crazy things they believe on the other side?
No. Clearly, Republicans, some subset of them, not all of them, believe crazy stuff.
That's obvious.
I wouldn't argue against that.
But the crazy stuff that Republicans believe...
It seems to fall into the category of conspiracy theory sort of stuff.
It doesn't feel, it doesn't have that same organized brainwashing You know, flavor to it.
It just somehow spontaneously, you know, came up.
Now, some have said that Q was an intel operation, which would also mean that opinions had been assigned.
Somebody skillful was doing it.
Maybe. But I tend to think that Republicans, some of them, get drawn into conspiracy theories, whereas the Democrats are literally brainwashed by their own side.
Now, there's some brainwashing on the right as well.
You know, people who follow some of the more prominent opinion people probably are primed and brainwashed just like the left, but in different ways.
But I haven't seen anything from the right that looked malicious.
There is a difference, right?
I'll just pick one example.
If you see Hannity...
Trying to brainwash you.
I'll just use that term to make my point.
If you saw Hannity trying to brainwash his followers into the idea that we should have better border security, is that manipulation?
Or is that just a common sense opinion?
And if you happen to adopt it, you would sort of be following common sense too.
Now I know people who disagree with the policy, but certainly there are plenty of people Who would have exactly the same opinion as Hannity without being primed?
Right? So I'm not sure that anything he's doing is necessarily priming anybody for anything evil, but it's happening, right?
It's happening everywhere all the time.
But the Floyd situation does appear to be pure evil in terms of the brainwashing.
And I was watching a little bit of Don Lemon last night.
Oh, my God, that's hard to watch.
Because he's in pure persuasion brainwashing mode over the Floyd case.
Because he, like other people by now, know that the case has fallen apart.
And he's intentionally priming his audience.
He's priming them.
To believe that if Chauvin is acquitted of, let's say, the most aggressive charges, the murder charges, that if he's acquitted, it will look like a miscarriage of justice.
That's what Don Lemon is priming his audience for.
He's priming them for a miscarriage of justice.
Now, when the result comes out, what will the people who are primed think they came up with out of their own opinion?
They will think they formed their own independent opinion and that, wow, this is a travesty of justice if it goes that way.
And it won't be their opinion.
It will be a primed opinion.
Now, how powerful is this priming thing?
You're wondering, right?
Well, let me tell you.
The defense used it as part of the defense.
So remember the disagreement about whether Floyd had uttered, it was hard to hear, something like, I ain't doing no drugs, is one version, or I ate the drugs.
Now, it's very different if he ingested them, ate them, versus he claimed he didn't have them.
Now, what Nelson did, the defense, is he used this priming concept...
I assume intentionally.
I don't know. But based on the level of persuasive excellence that he's bringing to the case, it would be hard for me to imagine he didn't do this intentionally.
But you don't know, right?
And what he did was he primed one of the witnesses by telling them what they were going to hear and then asking if he heard it.
If you know Laurel and Yanny, and there are several other audio hallucinations like that, you know that whatever Nelson told them to hear, given that it was ambiguous, he made them hear it.
And he actually got a witness to say he heard it.
Right in court. The next day, and I believe this is true, The next day, the prosecution put the same person on, showed him a little bit more context, re-primed him, and then he heard the other thing.
So you saw a human being, a perfectly rational, normal human, nothing wrong with his brain, you saw him primed twice to have an opinion that was assigned to him.
You watched his opinion be assigned to him in real time.
In court. In public.
And you saw it.
And then you saw the prosecution reassign it.
And it is stuck.
Now, how did the news report this turnaround?
That the prosecution got the defense's witness to completely change his story?
It was sort of reported like the prosecution was doing a good job, wouldn't you say?
And if you heard that the prosecution was doing a good job, what would you assume would be the outcome?
Well, we'd need to know more, of course, but it would look like they're heading toward a prosecution, wouldn't it?
Because the prosecution won this point.
Except, what was it that the prosecution won?
See, Nelson, the defense lawyer, is doing such a good job That is making me think that some things that could be accidents maybe were intentional.
Like he's that good.
That doesn't mean they're not just accidents.
But he's that good that you have to ask yourself the question.
So here's the question. Did he goad the prosecution into reversing what was heard from Floyd...
Such that he showed that Floyd was lying to the police officers.
Because if it were true, that Floyd said, which is what the prosecution wanted you to believe, that Floyd said, I ain't got no drugs or ain't do no drugs or something like that.
The prosecution established that Floyd was lying about a critical health-related issue of That's exculpatory, isn't it?
Am I crazy?
If the entire situation is what did the police know, what they learned...
Because remember, we know from Shaven's conversation with his superiors, we know that he suspected Floyd was on drugs.
I would say he probably knew it, wouldn't you?
Probably knew it, but he didn't know what drugs.
Floyd says, no, I'm not doing drugs.
What does the policeman now know about the suspect?
He knows that the suspect will lie to him.
Because he just did. An obvious lie.
I ain't got no drugs?
Well, if that's what Shaven heard, he knew that he had a lying suspect who had also resisted arrest.
Now, if you have a proven lying suspect, I mean lying right now, in the moment, and that suspect says, I can't breathe, which other testimony showed is fairly common.
You know, a suspect who's under custody...
Kind of commonly says, I can't breathe, the handcuffs hurt, you know, my arm is breaking, that sort of thing.
You put that all together, and it feels like Nelson may have tricked the prosecution into making Nelson's point that Shaven was dealing with a liar, and when the liar said, I can't breathe, what was Shaven supposed to think?
He was dealing with a known liar who had just lied to him on this very topic.
Now, keep in mind, after you've heard my explanation of what happened, would you agree that this is better for the defense than it is for the prosecution?
Am I wrong about that?
Am I missing something? Because it looks like it to me.
And yet CNN and others are reporting it as if it was good for the prosecution.
This is a massive brainwashing operation.
The news, presumably Democrats as well, are quite obviously brainwashing the public to create, and this is completely obviously, riots.
It's plain as day.
They're lying to their own audience to brainwash them into thinking that If there's some kind of an acquittal or anything close to it, just say lesser charges maybe, there's going to be riots right in front of us.
Now, I would say that if you did not study persuasion, this wouldn't be obvious at all, would it?
Now, a lot of you have followed me long enough that probably it was obvious to you, because once you see it, you can see it forever.
But if you don't see it for the first time, it's invisible forever.
You've got to see it the first time to be able to spot it.
So I would like to give you the Chauvin defense summary before it actually happens.
So at some point, Chauvin's defense lawyer is going to have to give a summary to wrap up the case.
But luckily...
Thanks to a tweet by Matt Walsh, who, by the way, I will add to my must-follow list.
You should follow Matt Walsh, if only because his tweets are excellent.
I don't agree with all of his opinions, but his tweeting is just really excellent.
Like, he's just one of the best tweeters out there.
And here's what he tweeted.
Tweeted to somebody. So he was responding to Ron Swanson's mustache, who said to Matt, replying to one of his tweets, he said, Why don't you volunteer to have Chauvin test the exact same move on you as part of his defense and see how it goes?
So how about that, Matt Walsh?
What are you going to say to that?
How about you? You're so confident about your opinion about this Floyd trial thing.
Why don't you...
Why don't you volunteer?
Have somebody put the knee on your neck.
See how you do, Matt Walsh.
Ha, ha, ha, ha.
Zing. Zing.
Well, it didn't go the way he hoped.
Ron Swanson's mustache.
Because... Matt Walsh replied in a tweet...
If I had someone restrain me the way Floyd was restrained, and you ingested the same amount of fentanyl that he did, three times the lethal dose, which of us do you think would make it out alive?
Slow clap.
You rarely see an argument won this decisively.
I don't think this guy came back.
He may have closed his account.
And when I saw this, I said to myself, that's the closing summary.
This is the closing summary.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we've seen a few different hypotheses of what killed George Floyd tragically.
And there is some uncertainty, whether it was the fentanyl, what role it played, and what role did the police actions play.
But I would like you to consider this.
If you had two choices for yourself, would you rather have nine minutes of an officer restraining you the same way that George Floyd was restrained, or would you prefer to take three times the lethal dose of fentanyl?
Now, it won't necessarily kill you, because you might have built up a tolerance, and people are different sizes, and that counts too.
But which one would you choose?
It's over. It's over.
Every single juror would think, I feel as if three times the lethal dose of fentanyl is the wrong play.
Now, it seems to be, because I think the prosecution has...
Try to muddy the waters on how much fentanyl was in Floyd.
Does that matter?
Suppose the prosecution gets somebody to say, we thought there was traces of it, but it's ambiguous.
That's enough.
It's reasonable doubt.
That's the end of the case. Because people looking at this case, I think you sort of reflexively, because the world is binary, you sort of reflexively think, well, could you prove that the officer didn't kill him?
And the answer is, you could never prove that.
That's not provable.
But you could prove that there's an alternate hypothesis which is at least as likely as the one you were looking at.
And then it's reasonable doubt, and then it's over.
Although I would think that the question of whether Shaven did everything right police-wise might be open, and I don't know if that means manslaughter is still on the table, but I don't think that third or second degree murder are even a possibility at this point, given the...
Type of evidence we've seen.
So I've told you that there are many filters on the world.
So we can all look at the world in the same set of facts and we can apply different filters.
Sometimes I call it two movies on one screen.
Other times I just say it's a filter.
But there's one that I live in all the time that most of you don't.
I'm going to tell you about it just because I think it's interesting.
It's based on two movies you've probably seen.
You've seen Harry Potter movies, and you've seen, maybe, some Kate Beckinsale movies called Underworld, in which he's a vampire fighting against werewolves.
Now, both of these movies have one thing in common.
They have this theme that the normal people in society don't know.
There's this raging war happening.
So in the case of Harry Potter, it's the wizards and stuff.
And in the case of Underworld, there's this massive battle between vampires and werewolves going on all the time, but the humans don't know it's even happening.
There's something like that happening right now, meaning that almost everything that matters has turned into persuasion plays.
Because communication is so thorough now with social media, the persuasion went from something that maybe you could only do if you were a politician, or you owned a newspaper, and now it's something that's just everywhere.
Persuasion is almost like the fabric of society at this point.
And there are two kinds of people in the world.
There are people who have studied persuasion, And can see it and understand it, and they can avoid it better because they can see it coming, etc.
And then there are people who don't.
And this creates a situation very much like Harry Potter and the Muggles, and very much like Underworld, where there's this gigantic battle that's waging right now that you don't see.
But some people do.
So I will just tell you this.
There is a war happening already, and it's pretty active.
The war is raging.
You just don't see it.
There are people, and I'm one of them, who are in it.
And we're fighting it pretty hard, and we are coordinated.
There is an army forming, literally, an army of persuaders...
Who are just finding each other and connecting.
As they connect, their combined power will rise until it is rivaling, and maybe it already does, governments themselves.
And we're fighting against the mainstream media, which is a machine that works with the Democrats, and they are a persuasion machine.
This Floyd situation will highlight this battle better than anything, because The one side is trying to make a riot happen, or a series of riots.
And let's say the fledgling-formed group of persuaders who are actually trained.
I'm not just talking about people who care.
I'm talking about trained persuaders, like the dangerous people.
The dangerous people are finding each other.
And they are the patriots.
They just want to avoid the trouble to thwart the other persuasion to stop a riot.
All right? So, you'll never see this.
Maybe you'll see some signs of it, right?
But you're never going to see the real battle.
But it's raging right now.
It's raging. And if I had to guess, I don't think we're going to win the Floyd one.
If I had to guess, I think the riots are coming.
Because I don't think we'll be strong enough, collectively, by then.
But we're going to get close.
And I think that you should find some comfort from knowing that very capable people are looking for the levers.
The levers are not always obvious, but sometimes, sometimes you can find one.
And it won't take more than one persuader finding one lever, and the other side will collapse.
Now, that's not to say it's going to happen.
Just finding that one level of persuasion that makes the other side collapse is not easy.
But the right people are looking for it.
That's what you need to know.
So, probable riots.
But there's a lot of effort that's being put together behind the curtain to stop this particular brainwashing operation.
In fact, I would say that most of what we consider the news now would be better characterized as PSYOPs.
You know, just literally brainwashing operations.
And I don't mean that with any hyperbole.
There's no hyperbole here.
I mean literally brainwashing operations.
And so here's one.
So I'm still waiting, I tweeted days ago, I'm still waiting for one example of somebody who wants to vote but can't get an ID. Just one.
Just one example of somebody who wants to vote, can't get an ID. Zero.
Did you believe this was real?
That there was some body of people, substantial number of people, who wanted to vote, Couldn't get an ID because they're poor, they couldn't afford it, couldn't figure it out, whatever.
This is a brainwashing operation.
This is a psyop.
None of this is real.
And it's one of the biggest stories in the country, and it's not real.
The George Floyd thing Assuming that we do get confirmation he had some fentanyl in him, I think we will.
The George Floyd thing probably is just a giant psyop.
And that's why it's everything that we're talking about.
Now that doesn't mean there's like some one boss that's ordering things.
It's a collective situation where people know what to do and it's just obvious how to help your team, as it were.
But The number of things that are not really news, and they're not just fake news, fake news would allow that it's just a mistake.
Fake news would allow it's some partisan who's just trying to sell you a story.
This is different.
This is a whole operation.
This is a lot of moving parts.
This isn't just somebody who decided to lie because it sounded good on TV. Donald Luskin, Twitter user, Tweeted this, which caught my attention.
Set the persuasion technique aside.
Talking about the voting ID issue.
He says, set the persuasion technique aside and ask why Dems want to reduce ID requirements.
Why do they want to do it?
Since such requirements, as you say, are not restricting voting, meaning that there's really nobody who wants to vote, doesn't have an ID, then what other reason could there be?
What other reason could there be?
Hmm, says Donald.
What could you do in big Democrat-controlled urban centers if IDs weren't required?
Hmm. So Donald is suggesting that they're trying to support their ability to cheat in future operations.
And I think you can make that case.
It seems clear that both the Republicans want to Game the rules so they get more votes.
The Democrats want to game the rules so they get more votes.
It has nothing to do with the Constitution or right to vote or poor people voting.
It has nothing to do with any of that.
You all know that, right?
There's nothing happening except people trying to game the system to get more votes.
It has nothing to do with what's right or wrong.
From either side. Now that said, certainly there's one set of actions which is more appropriate, but that's not why we're doing it.
We're not doing it because we like things to be right.
That would be great if we did, but that's not why.
Both sides are just gaming the system, trying to get more votes.
That's all it is. If you think it's anything more than that, you bought into the brainwashing, either from the left or Or the right.
But it's just brainwashing if you think they're doing it because it's the right thing to do.
They're doing it to get more votes.
That's it. So, here's my take on why they might be doing it.
Or rather, I would say, an outcome of it.
There is a predictable outcome...
Isn't there? Of requiring no IDs.
If the Democrats get their way, there will be a shift in power.
What will the shift be?
What shift in political power will there be in a world in which IDs are not required?
If you were to believe the narrative...
If you were to believe the brainwashing, which we're all experiencing right now, the story would be, well, Scott, we keep telling you all of these low-income black people, they're not getting to vote, so obviously, duh, if we remove this requirement, we're shifting power to black voters.
Who's going to argue with that, right?
I won't. I self-identify as black, so I'm fine with that.
And back when I self-identified as white, I also thought that was a good idea.
More votes, more good.
If you're a black voter or you're a black citizen in this country and you can't vote, I want you to vote.
Get in there and vote.
But I feel as if there's something else that would happen here.
I feel as if the number of black voters might stay just about the same, because there never were any black voters who couldn't get an ID. It was always fake.
But what kind of voters, generally speaking, might have some political benefit from not needing an ID? Wouldn't it be recent immigrants?
It feels like it's transferring power away from black Americans toward recent immigrants.
Now, I'm not going to say that's bad or good, because these recent immigrants, they live here too, right?
So if you ask me, am I personally better off, or do I care if a little power is transferred from the black population, To, let's say, the Hispanic population in this country.
Does that bother me?
Well, I can't think of a way it does directly, except that I like a world that works and it's fair and stuff.
But I think the black population of this country is being brainwashed into thinking this voter ID thing is about them.
I think it's not.
I think it's about taking power from them and everybody else.
And transferring it to a group that really doesn't have IDs, which would be recent immigrants, right?
So I'm just speculating.
All I'm saying is that if you're looking at it objectively, and you don't believe that there's a large population of black wannabe voters who just can't get ID, which I don't.
I don't believe there's any evidence of that at all.
Black voting won't change at all.
But recent immigrant voting might go up quite a bit.
Is that a coincidence?
I don't know. So the things that look like brainwashing ops right now is everything about the Floyd trial to create a riot.
The Georgia situation being Jim Crow laws, that's obviously a brainwashing operation.
There's a... Big story that just disappeared from the headlines.
And I can't tell you what it is.
But that was a brainwashing operation in the sense that, you know, the news disappeared a story.
If you want to look at stuff on the right, QAnon was, you know, people ended up being convinced.
But I don't know if that was a brainwashing operation.
Could have been. Could have been.
We don't know. I think there are lots of elements of the Matt Gaetz story, no matter what he did.
So I don't know what he did or did not do.
So independent of what he did or did not do, the way it's being handled is a brainwashing operation.
Nobody's trying to get to the truth of what Matt Gaetz did or did not do.
Nobody cares about that. They do care.
Oh yeah, somebody gave me another example.
The big lie. The big lie is a brainwashing operation.
Now, what they would like you to believe, because this is the brainwashing operation, is that the people who they say are lying about election fraud, that they're the ones trying to brainwash you, or they're the ones crazy.
But, of course, using that phrase, the big lie, is a brainwashing operation.
That's not news, or even close to news.
That's just brainwashing. And that phrase, the big lie, is just a classic persuasion technique.
And then there's the Capitol insurrection that I would call a mass brainwashing thing as well.
Probably on both sides, right?
There were people who were brainwashed to think that assaulting the Capitol would somehow work out, and people brainwashed to think that it was an insurrection when it was obviously just a protest.
A protest that was violent.
I'm not minimizing the violence.
But it wasn't an insurrection, right?
They weren't going to hold territory.
That was just brainwashing.
So, those are the points that I wanted to do today.
Yes, and the fine people hoax was, of course, a brainwashing operation.
But at least we, I think we unwound that enough that at least Biden doesn't mention it anymore.
I'm pretty sure Biden found out that wasn't real at some point.
And I think it happened during the election or soon after.
And it probably happened about the time that...
I think it was about the time that the Republicans showed the entire video.
Was it during the impeachment trial?
I would love to know if Biden ever referred to the fine people hoax after...
The Republicans showed the whole video in public to debunk it.
I don't know if he did.
He might have. He might have tried it out a few times, but he doesn't use it now.
That's worth something. Was it the second impeachment?
Somebody says, yes, he did.
Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised.
But he seems to have trailing off that a little bit.
Somebody says, man-made climate change is a massive brainwashing operation.
Well, you know, I thought about that one, but it has a different element, which is if we all agreed what the facts were, and we all, I guess, trusted science the same amount, we probably wouldn't disagree.
So it's a little bit more of a fact problem that is legitimate.
So, you know, there are some cases where the facts are easy to find, and then it's just persuasion.
But in a case where you really can't tell which facts are necessarily the most critical ones, I feel that's a little different situation.
But there's definitely a lot of persuasion in that story as well.
All right. Yes, trust the science, doubt the scientist.
Yeah, 97% of scientists agreeing was a persuasion tactic.
Now, persuasion's not bad.
You expect everybody who's an advocate to be a persuader, but I think you need to limit it to the people who are advocates.
You know, they're out there as lawyers, or they're advocating for the planet or something.
I don't mind persuasion in that context, because that's their job.
It's only when the news, who's trying to be objective, allegedly, if they're involved in a massive brainwashing campaign, that's not cool.
But an advocate? If your job is advocate, sure, advocate.
All right.
Have I heard of Malcolm Nance?
Yes. I don't know why you're asking.
Malcolm Nance is not one of those figures...
Whose opinions you should imagine are ever true.
I don't know if he's ever said anything that's true.
