Episode 1344 Scott Adams: News Propaganda, Reframing Everything, Biden Versus Putin, and LOTS More
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Examples of parody and reality merging
A pandemic of resisting arrest
Reframing top news stories
CRT is a form of learned helplessness
Putin warns Biden, Biden warns Putin
Propaganda attack stories on Matt Gaetz
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Because today will be the best livestream of Coffee with Scott Adams of all time.
And I'm not even kidding.
I've got content here.
Look at that. Look at that.
Pages. It's all the good stuff.
It's in my wheelhouse today.
So we'll be spending some time in my wheelhouse.
And if you'd like to enjoy it, All you need is a cup, a mug, a glass, a tanker, a chalice, a stein, a canteen, a jug, a flask, a fest, a love, 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 it's going to be a good one today.
Go! Oh, it wasn't good.
It was great. So...
Let's talk about all the things.
Number one, I don't know what you would call the best thing about the pandemic, if there is such a thing, but I would like to nominate on my short list of best things about the pandemic a video which I tweeted around this morning in which Mick Jagger teams up with Dave Grohl for a duet over Zoom,
and I guess they wrote the song They wrote the song just about the pandemic, and it's really good.
And I don't really know if it's good because of the context that I wanted to hear.
I basically wanted to see those two do a duet about the pandemic.
As soon as you see it, you're like, yes, I do want this.
I do want to see this.
But I'll tell you what made me feel the best.
Mick Jagger is 77.
He's 77. And, you know, you can tell he's a certain age, but, my God, he acts like he's, just age didn't affect him somehow.
How does he do that?
I don't know. Here's the other best thing about the pandemic that looks like the worst thing, but it might eventually turn into a good thing, which is the teachers' unions, their malign influence, The toxicity of the teachers' unions is now laid bare.
And I think education is just going to fall apart.
Because I can't see that what we know now about the teachers' unions, what we've seen about the schools, especially during the pandemic, I think their stranglehold is in real trouble.
And I've heard, don't know this is true, But I think you might see some big companies such as Apple or Google getting into the education space.
And if they do, that's all you need for homeschooling.
Now, when you say homeschooling, don't you imagine there's a student sitting in the living room all bored And one of the parents has to say, you know, keep watching that screen.
Like, when I think about homeschooling, it doesn't sound good, but I don't think that's the real model.
I think the real model will be people who just say, hey, you live in the neighborhood, you do homeschooling, I do homeschooling too, let's use the internet and get together and we'll have our little homeschool people, you know, over at my house today and maybe over at your house tomorrow.
But it's easy to imagine a self-organized, very socially engineered system where kids don't go to school and get bullied.
Rather, they're in their own neighborhood dealing with neighbors and there's no bullying because you've sort of selected the people in your group.
Or at least there'd be less. So I think that's one of the great things that's going to come out of this, is that the school system was exposed as the enemy of the people, and that's going to change.
I keep telling you that parity and reality have merged, but every time you hear another example of it, it's really shocking.
So here's another example where try to figure out if this really happened or if it's just a joke.
Did this really happen?
Was there a BBC diversity chief?
You can stop right there if you want to make your own joke.
I'll pause to let you insert your own joke.
There's a BBC diversity chief.
Okay, do your joke.
Now let's go on. Who says that, I think it's Idris Elba's TV detective, Luther, Quote, isn't black enough to be real because he doesn't have any black friends and doesn't eat any Caribbean food.
So there's that.
That's what the BBC diversity chief says.
He's not black enough, which is probably a big surprise to Idris Elba that he's not black enough.
But... Comment on that from Titania McGrath.
Now, if you're not following this account, you really need to.
It's Titania McGrath.
All one word.
And it's a parody account in which somebody allegedly named Titania McGrath, who's not a real person, basically agrees with stuff in the news.
And it's just hilarious.
Because she's agreeing with the most ridiculous parts of the news.
And she comments on, or whoever it is, comments on this story in a tweet and says, Thrilled to see someone finally calling out Idris Elba for not being black enough.
Quite frankly, with all my pioneering work for social justice, I'm far blacker than Idris Elba could ever hope to be.
Now you'd have to know that her profile picture is a blonde woman.
So that makes it funnier.
All right, here's example two.
Where parody and reality have merged.
You ready? Is this a real story?
Or is it a parody?
That Playboy is now featuring a plus-sized model in their newest edition.
Do you think that Playboy decided to run a plus-sized model?
Is that real?
Or is that parody?
Turns out it's real.
David Hasselhoff's daughter, Hayley Hasselhoff, is the plus size model, and she's going to be a Playboy feature.
Now, we don't do fat shaming here.
If I've told you once, I've told you a million times.
We don't do fat shaming.
But I should point out that if the entire purpose of your magazine is to show unnaturally good-looking women, what are you doing?
I'm not saying that plus-size women should not be in magazines.
I'm not saying anything like that.
I'm saying, if you're Playboy, isn't that the opposite of your brand?
And can you really survive if you go opposite your brand?
I mean, didn't people look at Playboy because they liked the brand?
Now, to their defense, I would say that Playboy probably can't exist as a naked picture magazine, even digitally, because is there anybody who doesn't have infinite access to naked pictures?
You know, it's called the internet.
So Playboy doesn't have much of a purpose in terms of the models.
It just doesn't have any purpose anymore.
So maybe they're just flailing around to find something that works.
I would like to give you the following...
Pun that does not come from me.
So the first thing you need to know about this pun, it wasn't from me.
It was from a woman.
Alright? That softens it a little bit.
This came from a woman.
I'm just repeating it.
And it's very unkind.
So you shouldn't laugh.
And what Angela says on Twitter about this Playboy having a plus-size model is, That it's an example of, and I quote, fattening the curve.
That's not funny.
Angela, you should be ashamed of yourself.
You should be ashamed.
And if any of you are laughing at fattening the curve, you've got some work to do.
Do the work. Do the work.
Well, here's some of the dogs not barking this week.
So these are the stories that don't exist.
And you don't know why.
Don't know why.
There are three dogs not barking.
Number one, we keep hearing more and more about Q and their stories in the New York Times about how to deprogram the Q believers and all that.
And still, things are very quiet about who was behind the Q. Now, some people say, well, we know there was this documentary where somebody said they found the guy who was behind it and He's sort of, kind of, but not really admitted it, but sort of, maybe kind of, but you're not sure.
Really? This Q thing is one of the biggest things in the country, and it doesn't really matter who was behind it?
I would say that matters.
Now, when I say behind it, I don't just mean the person posting, because it was obviously being boosted by, you know, whoever wanted to boost it, which was probably China and Russia, right?
So, things are really quiet about who's behind Q, and it's just so jarringly obvious that it's being ignored.
You have to ask yourself why.
I don't know why, but if it's not an Intel operation, I would be really surprised.
Or if Q... Q may have started as, you know, something as a prank or whatever.
It may have started as one thing.
But certainly at some point, it became an intelligence operation.
And probably not just American.
Probably foreign, American, who knows?
Maybe some combination.
But we don't hear about that.
Here's another story that I haven't heard.
Has anybody put together statistics on how many citizens are killed by police...
We're not resisting arrest.
Just the category of people not resisting arrest.
Now, I'm not defending the police, because if somebody's resisting arrest, that doesn't mean you get to kill them.
I'm not saying that.
There's got to be a better way to do some things than the way we're doing them.
I completely agree with anybody who's protesting who says, why don't you get more creative?
There's got to be a better way.
Totally agree with that.
But How many people do get killed when they're not resisting?
I would think the only thing left would be the category of mistakes, where somebody thought they saw a gun, but it was something else.
That's probably all this left, right?
And so I would argue that we have a pandemic of...
basically a pandemic in which we believe that people are killed by police, But what we really have is a pandemic of resisting arrest.
What if it were reported that way?
Suppose the media said we have a pandemic of people resisting arrest, and the obvious outcome is that people are getting killed.
It's the same story, right?
All I did was reframe it, but none of the details are different.
But if you thought this was a story of racism and cops killing black people, You feel one way about it, and if you simply have been told by the news, forget about whether this is true or false, just see where I'm going here.
If the news has simply decided that the way to report this was to say we have this pandemic of people resisting arrest and getting themselves killed, that easily could explain everything you see.
Couldn't it? But the way you feel about it would be your hair would not be on fire.
You'd be thinking, why are so many people doing this?
What do we do about that?
Is it really a police problem?
Or it puts them in a situation where the risk is higher, and so if the police do not act perfectly, which is hard to do in a tense situation, nobody acts perfectly all the time in Complex, chaotic situations.
So that's a lot to ask of the police, to not make a mistake in those situations.
Alright, here's another one.
Where's my one example of a citizen who wants to vote but can't figure out how to get an ID? On day one, I was perfectly okay with no examples.
On day two, I started to think, huh, it's been two days.
Feels like you could have found One person to put on the news to say, I can't figure out how to get an ID, which would be weird because the moment the person said that, somebody would help them get an ID. Literally the same moment.
If you saw somebody on TV who said, I can't get an ID because it costs $35 or I don't know how, what would be your first impulse?
I'll give you $35.
Somebody would. Maybe you wouldn't, but I would.
I can afford $35.
If somebody came to me and said, the only thing keeping me from voting is I can't afford to get my original birth certificate so that I can get an ID, and it would cost me $35, I'd say, oh, here you go. Problem solved.
Or if they said I don't know where to go or how to do it, I'd say, huh, I don't either, but let me Google it.
Oh, here you go. Problem solved.
Part of the reason that you can't surface anybody is that their problem would be solved the moment they surfaced.
So the one person who couldn't solve the problem would have it solved for them immediately.
Let's say a hundred people came forward and they all said, we don't know how to do this, can't solve it.
One day, all solved.
Because other people would solve it.
This is one of those problems where Everybody could solve this problem.
You just have to tell us who you are.
It's the most non-problem ever existed in the world.
A self-solving problem.
All you have to do is complain about it and it's solved.
Can you think of anything else where the only thing you have to do is complain publicly and it gets solved?
Yeah. So obviously nobody's looking to solve the problem.
I think that's clear. I am coming around to the opinion that the protesters who are protesting from everything about George Floyd to Duante Wright, whose name I always mispronounce.
I don't do it intentionally.
And I'm coming around to that opinion that there has to be a better way to handle this.
Because as soon as a confrontation starts, you've ramped up the odds of something bad happening right through the roof.
Is there a way to, let's say, deny them digital access to the world?
Let's say you know who it is.
So let's say your minimum requirement is you know who the perpetrator is.
And maybe they're in a car and they're running away, or they get away.
But you can ID them.
Either because you've got a photograph and you have, let's say, facial recognition or something.
Maybe you looked at the license plate and it was the real person.
So if the police know who the person is or have a way to identify the person, let's say the driver of a car or somebody else who they catch but then that person runs away, isn't there a better way, a non-violent way, to punish them from a distance?
In other words, just put like a digital tag on them so that any time they try to sign up for Snapchat they can't do it.
I'm just brainstorming here.
That might not be a good example.
Because everybody needs to live in the digital world.
They need to eventually have banking.
They need to sign up for Instagram.
And for all these things, you need to say what your name is, ideally.
So it feels to me that there's something we could do by, let's say, limiting somebody's digital life until they just surrender.
Until they just surrender.
Now, there might be a part two to this, which is you have to lower maybe the penalties.
So there might be some things which somebody would get arrested for that maybe we just should minimize it a little bit.
So I'd look at that as well.
But I am not completely unsympathetic, and I know some of you are, to the idea that we could defund the police.
Now, it would be crazy to just defund the police if you didn't have some substitute system you thought had a chance of making a difference.
But if you took a long-term look at it and said, what could you do to make police not necessary?
Let me throw out another idea.
Instead of letting all the people with criminal records live among the people who do not, suppose once you get a criminal record...
You just have to live in the place with all the people with criminal records.
Sort of like a prisoner island situation.
Could that group of people, where all the prisoners, or not the prisoners, the people who have some kind of criminal record, they could just live with themselves with no police.
Let them come up with their own rules.
If it's better, it's better.
Now somebody's saying prison, but I'm talking about somebody who's already paid their debt.
They just have a Let's say they have a violent criminal record.
The odds of people being a repeat offender are pretty high.
If you've never had a criminal record, your odds are low that you'll get one after a certain age.
So I feel as if there's a segment of the population that doesn't want to live in the same place as police live because they're natural enemies.
Somebody's not going to stop committing crimes.
The police are not going to stop busting them for it, so they just shouldn't be in the same place.
Just let the people who want to be criminals live with other criminals.
Now, I'm not saying that's a good idea.
If you're saying to yourself, that's a bad idea, liberty, constitution, those are all good counterpoints.
I'm just saying that I feel as if there's a level of creativity we could apply to this that hasn't been applied.
I'm just saying let's be creative and see what we can do.
And test some things. You never know.
Suppose you took one of these people who had a criminal record, and again, this has nothing to do with race, in case you're imagining that.
This is a non-racial thing.
You just say, here's your deal.
If you live among the people that want police, you're going to get stopped by the police, you're going to get arrested, and you're going back to jail.
But we'll give you the option.
You could live in a non-police city.
You'll probably be killed by the people who are also criminals living there.
But, if you want, it's your option to have no police.
So it'd have to be optional.
I think that would be the main point.
Alright, so here's some reframings.
I'm going to give you several examples of how to take things that are in the news and just look at them differently, just by reframing them.
Number one. There's a doctor who's got lots of credentials in her bio.
So some doctor, Celine Gounder, is talking about Nate Silver's, I guess Nate Silver had tweeted about some things about the coronavirus, etc.
And she tweets, with all due respect to Nate Silver, he is not an expert on the psychology of vaccine confidence.
He is a poll aggregator and a political pundit.
He is not an infectious disease specialist, epidemiologist, vaccinologist, virologist, immunologist, or behavioral scientist.
So there. Do you know who else is not those things?
Everybody? I think she just described everybody on Earth.
There's nobody who is all these things.
So should everybody just shut up unless they have mastered all these domains?
Well, let me reframe this the way James Suriwiki did in a responding tweet.
He said, it is ridiculous to say Nate Sulphur is not qualified to speak about how a government action might shape public opinion or on the types of messaging around issues of risk and reward that are likely to be effective.
And as James says, that is his lane.
The people who know risk management Are the only people who should be talking.
Let me say that again.
Nate Silver is one of the few people in the world who has earned the right to talk about anything.
Because he can do math.
He understands risk management and puts things in that context consistently.
He has a good track record of showing he's mastered his field.
I would say that anybody who is any of these things, like a disease specialist, a virologist, immunologist, any of those people, they should shut up, and they should talk to Nate Silver.
I'm not serious, but to make the point, they should talk to him, and then all the other people should talk to Nate Silver, and then Nate Silver should tell us what the risk management looks like once he's collected the opinions of the experts.
Now that's what a leader does, right?
A leader who knows risk management does.
A bad leader would not.
They would just take the political route.
But this framing of Nate Silver as exactly the wrong person to be talking about it, It's completely upside down.
He's the only person I would listen to if I had a choice.
Because he understands risk management.
All of these experts, they kind of know what they read from other experts.
And if they can sum up their opinions, I do want a Nate Silver to tell me what to think about it.
Now, I'll make up my own opinion, obviously.
I want the risk management of people to be talking.
I don't want some frickin' siloed immunologist person who doesn't understand anything except their field.
I don't care about that.
So the reframing here is that the risk management people are the only people who should be talking in public.
Because if you can't frame things in terms of risk management, you are doing propaganda.
Risk management is the opposite of propaganda.
Anything that leaves it out is, either by intention or design or accident, propaganda.
So there's your first reframing.
All right, here's another one. On the issue of voter IDs, is voter ID racist?
Well, this is a reframing from, you should know because the story requires it, a black man who is Mark Keith Robinson, Lieutenant Governor of North Carolina.
Now, because he's black, he gets to say this.
You and I maybe can't, depending on what color you are.
And he says, quote, I categorically reject the notion that a people who were strong enough to survive and overcome the horrors of slavery and the violent bigotry of Jim Crow are now too weak to obtain a free ID to protect the integrity of their vote.
That's really good. As reframings go, this is as good as you get.
So Mark Keith Robinson, I don't know anything about him, except he's a lieutenant governor.
But if this is the kind of game he can bring to other topics, maybe we're going to see more of Mark Keith Robinson.
Because I would like to see more of this, you know, if I could, you know, safely extrapolate from one opinion.
This is a good reframe.
And what did I tell you is the important thing here is that responsibility is the person's, not society's, to fix you.
And he framed that perfectly.
That you're basically calling black people what if the one thing they can't do is get an ID, which everybody can do?
It feels racist, right?
It feels racist to me to say that black people can't figure out how to get IDs.
I don't know how you could see it any other way but racist.
All right. I told you about the resisting arrest epidemic as opposed to the police killing people epidemic.
That's a better reframe.
And accurate, too.
The thing with a reframe is I don't try to sell you any reframe that doesn't make things more clear.
Like, I'm not going to reframe things to make them more propaganda unless I'm doing it for fun.
But yeah, I guess sometimes I might do that to influence.
I guess you could call that propaganda.
So I'll take that back. I think probably sometimes I do reframe for influence, but I never do it for bad intentions, right?
It's usually to make things clear, not the opposite.
We know now from James O'Keefe and his secret videos he's got.
If you haven't seen this, You've got to see this.
You have to see the newest video from Project Veritas, and you probably are only going to be able to see it on their website, because I think it's probably suppressed everywhere else.
But they got a technical director at CNN on camera saying that, first of all, he admitted that the network engaged in propaganda.
He actually used that word.
To remove Trump from presidency.
And he said, quote, our focus was to get Trump out of office.
And he said, I came to CNN because I wanted to be part of that.
So actual CNN employee, who's a technical director, so that must be, you know, at least a fairly management kind of a job.
And he's saying it directly.
And he's not...
It's on Twitter, somebody's saying.
So just... Just Google James O'Keefe and CNN propaganda will probably pop up.
And then more of it talked about how they were planning to, after the pandemic's over, CNN was going to shift its focus to scaring you about climate change.
And then today we see that the words climate emergency are going to be used by some other media.
They're saying, well, we're going to call it a climate emergency from now on, as opposed to climate change.
Is that propaganda?
Yes, it is.
Because if you change the word so that the word itself is a message, you've left out the reasons.
If you give me the reasons, that's an argument.
But if you try to pack the reasons into a word, and you're trying to get me to just accept the word, independent of the reasons that went into it, it's kind of an end run around reason, isn't it?
So I'm going to call that a reframe that's a potentially bad one.
Now, if you think that the climate is an emergency, you would say this is a good reframe because it gets people to be more serious about something that's serious.
So this one's more of an opinion one, but there's no doubt that it's propaganda.
You just don't know if it's productive propaganda because there's good propaganda and bad, right?
We're all brainwashed all the time.
Some of it's good for us.
Some of it's not.
How about critical race theory?
I was reading an article from a teacher who was at a private school who got in trouble for criticizing critical race theory.
And when you hear about the details of it, it's basically just racism.
Not even just basically, it's just racism.
So they're actually teaching kids to be racists under the guise of doing the opposite.
And I don't think that's an unfair characterization because the details of it are that you're supposed to see each other in terms of your race and act that way somehow.
And that is racism.
I'm not just... Using hyperbole, that is literally the definition of racism.
Treating people differently based on race.
Now, of course, they would say they have good intentions, but do you care?
Do you care that they have good intentions when it's still just racism?
I think you shouldn't care about that.
Because racism with good intentions is Nazi Germany.
Because the Nazis had good intentions for the Nazis.
They just had bad intentions for other people.
Or didn't care. Here's how I would reframe critical race theory.
I would call it state-mandated racism.
So critical race theory looks to replace, this would be its stated intention, individual racism in students.
They're replacing individual racism...
With state-mandated racism, because this CRT stuff is sort of mandated at this point.
How's that reframe?
It's state-mandated racism.
And it's completely supportable by their own description of what it is.
You don't even have to change the description.
Just say, here's what they say it is.
This is them telling you what it is.
State-sponsored racism.
Now, I don't think that's an effective reframe, but it's an accurate one.
Here's some more.
I think critical race theory causes brain damage.
Not hyperbole, not an exaggeration, not speaking figuratively.
I think it literally causes brain damage.
Now, of course, as we get smarter about what brains are and how brains work, Everything is brain damage if it's not good for you, right?
So yeah, pretty much your cell phone and everything else is causing brain damage.
But I think this is.
And here's specifically why.
It's teaching kids a form of learned helplessness.
And that is, number one, child abuse, in my opinion.
I think it's child abuse to say that your problems are caused by other people.
That your success will be limited by the opinions of other people.
Is it true? Totally.
It's totally true. Your success will be influenced by racism.
Mine was. I told you I lost two careers.
Three, really. Three careers to racism.
So, yeah, racism really does affect you.
But, if you teach the kids that message, that they're victims of it, as opposed to Agents of their own life.
They have control of their life.
They have problems in life.
Racism is one of them.
It's a big one. But they have strategies where they can slice through it like a hot poker through butter, if they use the right strategies.
Now, compare these two messages.
Your life will be determined by racism, which I think critical race theory is telling them, versus there are a lot of problems in the world, but we're going to teach you how to get over them.
One of them is good for your brain and your life, and the other gives you brain damage.
Telling people that they're helpless to racism, I think, is brain damage and a form of child abuse.
And that's my real opinion, by the way, in case you're wondering if I'm just trying to make an argument or something.
That's a genuine, real opinion, that it causes brain damage.
Here's another reframe.
We have lots of fact-checkers in the world.
And I appreciate them, even when I disagree with them.
I do think it's really useful that there are fact-checking organizations.
Even when so many times I think they get it wrong, it's better that they exist than not.
And if you have more than one fact-checking organization, you have a little bit of hope that one of them will get it right, and you can spot that.
But here's what we really need.
Propaganda checkers.
That's what we need. We need propaganda checkers.
I'm going to pause for a moment because something just happened in your head, didn't it?
When I said that, you just said to yourself, holy shit, we could do that.
Completely doable. It's just a website with calling out what is propaganda and what is objective.
It's easy. Somebody just looked at the headlines, say, oh, that one's propaganda.
Now it would have to be somebody with some credentials.
Much like the fact-checkers require people who are good at researching and fact-checking.
So there are people who are good at propaganda spotting.
Me, for example.
I could do a propaganda-checking website if I had nothing else to do.
Just start a website, take each headline, say, okay, they used this word, that's propaganda.
Now remember, propaganda doesn't mean bad for you.
It just means they're not trying to let you make up your own mind.
Let me give you an example of propaganda that's good for you.
Patriotism. Patriotism.
Pledge of Allegiance. It's propaganda.
It's brainwashing.
It just happens to be good for the country, to get everybody on the same side, especially children.
So we do brainwash children like crazy.
It just happens to be better than not.
So I wouldn't even say that the propaganda is always bad, but you should call it out and say what it is.
Now, isn't all communications propaganda?
No. No, it is not.
You could make an argument that everything has, you know, 2% of propaganda in it.
I could see that.
But the difference in level...
It's so extreme that that's worth calling out.
But you are right that once it gets down to the more subtle cases, it's sort of an opinion.
All right. But certainly the CNN moving from climate change to climate emergency, assuming that's what they go to, looks like the mainstream is going to go to that.
That's propaganda.
But if I were the propaganda checker, I would say, okay, this is propaganda, but it might be good for you.
If they're right, right?
If they're right about climate change and how dangerous it is, calling it an emergency is good for you.
Right? So propaganda doesn't mean it's bad for you.
I guess I said that too many times.
All right, here's another one.
All right, well, never mind that.
I'm going to skip this one. So it looks like Putin and Biden are in a manly man dick measuring contest.
And I guess Putin warned Biden against putting any warships anywhere near the Ukraine situation, where I guess Russia has amassed forces on the border of Ukraine.
And we all expect them to invade and conquer and hold the Russian The Russian language portion of that area, Crimea and Ukraine, it looks like Russia is just going to grab it and keep it.
And he warned Biden to keep his warships out for your own good, for their own good.
And Biden came back and says he warned Putin that he should, you know, stay cool for his own good.
So now they've both given each other a mafia-like warning.
It's like, you might want to stay out of this area for your own good.
Now, was that useful?
If this were Trump, would this be happening?
Do you think that Putin would be acting the same if Trump were president?
Because remember, everybody said Trump's best friends with Putin, right?
So wouldn't Putin do the same thing?
Because he wouldn't be worried about Trump, because they're best friends, according to the mainstream media.
But Trump had one thing that was sort of a superpower, wasn't it?
You could not predict What the hell that guy was going to do?
You couldn't predict.
What about Biden? Is Biden predictable?
Yes, he is.
Did Trump tell us that being unpredictable would be like an extra power?
Yes, he did.
Often. Did we see it in practice?
Yes, we did.
Because he acted unpredictably.
He dropped the mother of all bombs.
He bombed that Syrian airport, even though there were Russian troops there.
He simply made sure you knew that you didn't know what the hell he was going to do next, which is really, really scary.
Right? Biden is not scary because you do think he's going to warn you and you do think he's going to act predictable.
What happens when somebody who's a chess player like Putin is presented with an unpredictable situation?
He waits until it's predictable.
What happens when he's presented with a predictable situation?
Well, then it's chess time.
And who's going to be better at chess?
You know, I would say that Putin has the home field advantage over there.
I feel like he wins at chess.
He wouldn't win if he had to hold off and wait for things to clarify.
And that was what Trump offered, I think.
All right. If you were to predict where this is going to go, I have sort of a general question.
Is it possible for a superpower to deter any other superpower if the superpower is going after a smaller nation?
And I think not.
I think that if you had to guess what the future looks like, it will be China does own Taiwan eventually.
Russia does own the Russian-speaking, at least, portions of Ukraine eventually.
There's nothing that can stop them.
Because I don't see that a superpower is going to go to war over another country.
I just don't.
And it seems to me that the superpowers will probably just consolidate control over neighboring countries just for security reasons.
Now here's my question.
Why is it that Russia wants to control this part of the world?
What's in it for Russia to conquer and hold territory in Ukraine?
Now, of course, the story is that there are Russian-speaking people who just want to be conquered and be part of Russia.
Nobody really believes that, right?
Nobody believes that it's about, you know, nationalism or Russian-speaking or anything.
That's just sort of the story.
Somebody says gas lines, but I don't think so, because that would just be one little part of the world.
You know, you'd still need to get your gas line to where you need it to go.
Access to the Black Sea, but not the parts that they're trying to conquer, right?
Do you think that they're just going to try to conquer stuff till they get to the ocean?
So here's what I'm wondering.
Why does anybody want to deny Russia the ability to, A, defend themselves, They have nuclear weapons, so helping them defend themselves a little bit better doesn't seem like it would make any difference to the United States, does it? Because we could destroy Russia a thousand times over with nukes.
So if they're a little bit more secure, let's say they conquered some buffer territory, do we care?
I feel as if we could make some places less conquerable by simply not being a threat.
And I just don't even know what Putin gets from conquering this little bit of real estate.
And I don't think I'll ever find it in the news.
So maybe, if anybody knows, let me know.
I mean, I see your guesses.
But here's my larger point.
I believe that the way Trump got what I would call a good result in North Korea Is that he took away the reason for North Korea to be at war with the United States.
He just took away the reason.
Why can't we do that with Ukraine, Taiwan, etc.?
Can't we take away the reason?
I feel like we could.
Now, in the case of China and Taiwan, or whatever the real name is for Taiwan, In that case, I think there's sort of a national ego involved, so maybe there's nothing you can do about that one.
But I do think that the superpowers should not be conquering countries for their own safety.
If that's really the reason, that shouldn't be a thing.
And I don't think that anything should stop any country from producing gas or anything in a Competitive environment, so long as we're not victims of it in a monopoly sense.
All right, let's talk about...
There's a Rasmussen poll results.
They asked this question, how likely is it that cheating affected the outcome of the 2020 presidential election?
Now, you know that this is going to be by party lines, right?
So they added together the people who said it's very likely that cheating affected the race and the somewhat likelies.
For a total, likely.
Democrats, 30% of them, 30% of Democrats were willing to say that it's at least somewhat likely that the election was changed by cheating.
30%. That's way more than I thought.
Then unaffiliated, about half of them, and Republicans, as you might expect, 74% of them.
Now, again, you get this 74% thing, and I always ask, who's the other 25%?
Who are these people?
And I have a hypothesis that 25% will interpret a polling question differently than the other 75%, somewhat consistently.
So the question was, do you feel the cheating affected the outcome?
Who are the 25% of Republicans who think no?
It's hard to be a Republican and think no.
But of all voters, 51%.
Now, if 51% of voters, especially if a third of them Democrats, think that there's this high chance of something, shouldn't we be working a little bit harder for transparency on the next one?
And you don't really see it, do you?
I see no effort by anybody to make the next election more transparent or even to have a full audit of what we have.
So that's something.
So there's a website that purports to collect all of the studies of various chemicals that were used for early treatment of COVID. And this website is not what I would call a credible website, but I'll just alert you to it anyway.
It says C19, the letter C, 19early.com, in case you want to take a look at it.
C, letter C, 19early.com.
And what they did is take all the different studies of the various chemicals that have been tried and took an average of how much they helped based on those studies.
Now, number one, Can you take an average of studies?
Is that something you can really do?
Well, I'm not statistically competent enough to say when that can be done, because there are times you do embedded studies and you do exactly that.
And people do consider that useful.
But there have to be other times when just grabbing a bunch of things that studied things differently and taking an average might not be the best thing to do.
So I don't know if it is in this case.
But let me tell you the results that they got when they sort of averaged the studies, multiple studies.
At the top of the list, the thing that helped the most if you got it early, 91% improvement, I guess.
Again, this is low-credibility reporting here, so don't take any of this as true, is something called proxalutamide.
So of all the things from vitamin D to zinc to hydroxychloroquine to remdesivir, ivermectin, they're all on the list, and I'll mention them in a minute.
But the number one one is one I've never heard of.
Have you heard of this one?
I assume if you're a medical doctor you know what it is.
But I've never heard of proxalutamide.
Is it true that it's 91% effective if you get it early?
What the hell is it? Here's number two.
Bromhexine. What?
And apparently that's like, you know, hugely effective according to this non-credible grouping of studies.
Number three, povidine iodine.
What? What the hell is it?
And you have to get to number four before you get one you've even heard of, ivermectin.
Now, this claims a 76% improvement.
Who knows? Then you go further down the list, there are a number of chemicals, and you get down to 62% effectiveness, and again, I'm not saying any of this is incredible, I'm just reporting what is reported, that vitamin D is 62% effective.
I have a real question on that, because I think probably the studies only showed that people with vitamin D had better outcomes.
I don't think it showed that if you gave them vitamin D, You know, like just a pill, a regular pill of vitamin D. I don't think that's what anybody studied, but I could be wrong.
And then we get down toward lower on the list.
Zinc, allegedly 37% effective.
Hydroxychloroquine, allegedly 26% effective.
And at the very bottom, remdesivir.
Oh, and vitamin C, I guess, is even lower.
But remdesivir, basically 26%.
Now, don't believe any of these numbers, but the question I ask is, if zinc is 37% by itself, and hydroxychlorine is 26% by itself, and vitamin D is 62% by itself, what happens if you take all three?
Or what happens if you take any combination of these that work on different mechanisms?
You'd have to be careful what your combination was, I guess.
I feel like there's some combination of these.
If science studied them, maybe they'd find out that it makes a difference.
Who knows? Oh, somebody says Brett Weinstein said he would take ivermectin based on his own looking and reading of the research.
Now, he would be more qualified than most people to read research and make a decision.
But again, people are going to have different opinions.
So, none of these drugs make anybody much money, except remdesivir that we heard a lot about, but it doesn't seem that effective for the early use.
Might be better for late use.
Here's an interesting little thing for you to try.
Well, in a moment.
Oh, let's do this. So, Luke Rutkowski points out, try searching for the term Riots today.
Just two words. Search for riots today, and then use two different search engines.
One, DuckDuckGo, and then do the same search on Google.
Do you think you'll get a different result?
Well, as you might expect, the word riot If you do it on Google, it gets softened to protest if they're left-leaning events.
And it gets turned into riot, just like the search term, if it's a right-leaning event.
And once you see it side-by-side, you would think, well, a search engine is just going to look for words, right?
It's not doing any thinking.
It's just a search engine.
So they should be very similar.
Nope. One scrubs the word riot and turns it into protest, and one keeps riot as riot.
And when you see it side by side, it's just shocking.
There's a story that the Capitol Police, they have this agency's civil disturbance unit, so they specialize in handling the large group of protesters, and apparently they were not allowed to use their most powerful tools and techniques against the Crowd that marched on the Capitol.
Now, is that a story?
Because don't you think it was probably a good decision not to use their most powerful tools and techniques?
Because when we're talking about all these police actions and people dying for being stopped for warrants and stuff that shouldn't end in your death, but The call is to get the police to be less violent.
Isn't this the right thing?
I feel as if that was the right decision, to not use their most effective tools, because I do think it's better that the crowd got farther than they should have, but probably the officials may have played it right.
Because the perfect...
Mix is that they don't get to the actual politicians, and there was somebody willing to shoot somebody to stop that from happening.
I think they would have shot more people if anybody had been closer to the actual elected professionals.
At the same time, there could have been a greater loss of life if this civil disturbance unit had been authorized to use more dangerous methods.
So I feel like It's a weird story that they're reporting on a complete failure, but I'm looking at all the same details and I see a success, like a really good one.
Because I feel like the least harmful thing to do would be to let them in To the unoccupied parts, keep the temperature down, which is what the professionals did, and have a not screwing around wall between the protesters and the actual people they're protecting.
So I'm in favor of the guy who shot the woman who came through the window.
I don't think he should be charged.
Because if you're going to take this agency's civil disturbance unit and tell them they can't use The more aggressive things, that does mean you have made a decision to let that crowd get right up to the elected professionals.
And if the guy who did the shooting felt he was sort of the last line between the elected officials and the protesters, that was a good shoot.
Somebody says, no warning shot.
That's a fair statement.
That's a fair statement.
But I don't know if he had time, because if she'd gotten through, I don't know if the warning shot could have helped much.
But I think that was a judgment call.
I mean, you don't always have time for a warning shot.
He probably yelled a warning.
And it's not like anybody didn't know this was dangerous, right?
Did you have to know that you could get a shot if you break through a window in the Capitol?
Who didn't know that? All right, let's talk about propaganda.
Here's more on the Matt Gaetz story.
Now what's interesting about this story is that as time goes by, there have been many allegations, but they all have the same quality.
They're not supported.
And the longer we go without any of these allegations being supported by something that you and I can actually see and we know the details of, it's disturbing.
Now, remember, I defend the process and the system when it's worth defending.
I don't defend the people.
So Matt Gaetz is on his own.
He has to be on his own to defend himself.
That's not my job. Like, I don't want to defend him.
You can if you want, but I don't want to.
But we should talk about the system.
So there's a story today, one of the big publications, I don't know who it was, New York Times or somebody, So somebody's reporting that they saw him at a party in which there were women there.
They were all legal age, as far as anybody could tell.
No report of him being at any kind of an event with anybody under 18.
And somebody reported, and it made it into a story, that somebody saw him taking pills that could have been recreational.
Is that fair?
That's actually reported in the news.
That somebody saw him take some pills that somebody else thought might have been recreational?
I don't feel like that should be in a story.
Might have been? Do you know what kind of pills might have been something else?
All of them. That's every pill.
There's no evidence that he directly paid anyone for sex, but there's all this suspicion.
You know, there's the other guy who might have...
There might have been money for travel and hotels, but is that paying for sex?
I don't know. Then there's a suggestion that Matt Gaetz might have been provided women by, you know, whoever might be trying to influence him or blackmail him.
To which I say, can't Matt Gaetz get as many women as he wanted?
I mean, he's engaged now, but does anybody suggest that Matt Gaetz had trouble getting women and that He would be influenced because somebody got him a hooker, if that ever happened.
There's no evidence that that happened.
That looks good.
So I'm not sure any of this quite reaches the level at which we should be reporting it.
Now, if any of these things get confirmed, I suppose that's worth reporting.
But it's just so creepy It's if he did this, and he might have done this, and could have done this.
That's just everybody.
Everybody could have taken a drug, and maybe they did.
Everybody might have done something bad, but we'd like to see some evidence.
And I would also add like this.
So the big conversation about the Matt Gaetz story is whether money was ever involved in his relationships with women.
To which I say, it's always involved.
Money's never not involved in relationships.
In the specific case where one person has a lot of it, or more of it, and one person doesn't have much.
And the reporting is that these were relationships with Gates who had money, and women who were younger especially, and did not.
There are no situations where a man with a lot of money gets into any kind of conduct with a woman who has none or little, and there isn't a transfer of money for something.
It's just the most universal mechanism in the world.
Now, somebody says, gold diggers.
So? Who doesn't like money?
Raise your hands if you don't like money.
To me, it just seems the most biologically normal thing in the world that people who have money share it with people who don't and that there's a reciprocal benefit in that.
So just the fact that we're talking about it, it's just weird.
It's like we don't even understand how life works.
All right. There's more news about Q believers and how to reprogram them.
Apparently, there's an effort to try to reprogram the Q believers.
And one of the things that the experts say doesn't work is to tell them that they're stupid and wrong.
You could have talked to me.
I think I could have told you that you don't really change people's mind by telling them they're stupid and wrong.
You could try. It has never worked in the history of the world.
So the question is, what makes cues so sticky, and how do you deprogram them if you think you should?
I would like to add one thing to the what makes it sticky.
And this is an observation I made when the internet was brand new.
When the internet was new, the guiding assumption was that this would be a way to Push information to people who wanted information.
And I said early on, that's not how people work.
Yeah, I mean, there will be plenty of that information that people want.
They'll get it from the Internet. But I said early on, because to me, as a student of persuasion and the mind, that the far larger effect would be giving people a way to talk.
So that the Internet is driven mostly By talking and not listening.
Listening's real good. Listening meaning you research, you get some information, right?
So it's very good for that.
But that's not what drives it.
That's not the passionate part.
That's not the part that makes you sign on every day.
The part that does that is you being heard.
So you being heard is really, really powerful.
You being somebody who consumes information is just a passive process.
So the thing that Q did accidentally write, or was it accidental?
We don't know. But it would be quite amazing if somebody had figured this out in advance.
But what it did was it empowered everybody to be a little bit of a star.
So it also had the lottery effect to it.
The lottery effect is, well, it's not likely, but I could hit the lottery.
In this case, if you were a Q researcher, it wasn't likely that you were going to be the one who finally put all the pieces together and solved the big conspiracy and outed the deep state.
But it was possible.
You could. You might be the one who finally put the pieces together.
Other people were doing it.
It looked like they were making some progress, or at least as far as you could tell.
And so you thought, maybe I could.
So it's not just that I could be heard, but I could change the world.
Have I told you, I think one or two of my books mentions this point, that one of the tricks I do to keep myself interested in life and keep my energy up is I always have at least one, usually more, at least one project that could change the world.
Now the odds of me doing anything that changes the world The odds are low, right?
But even though the odds are low, the potential benefit is so large that it's still motivating.
And some of you have done the story about telehealth over state lines.
I was part of making that happen.
So there have been cases where I have changed the world.
Objectively. You watched it with your own eyes.
You saw me suggest telehealth be allowed over state lines during the pandemic.
You saw the president get the idea.
You saw him do an executive order.
And now telehealth is everywhere.
So it is not crazy to think that one person can come up with the thing that put the parts together.
It does happen.
And people have seen plenty of examples of it.
Greta Thunberg. Perfect example of one person who can make a difference.
So Q has that going for it.
It had that going for it. So that's pretty powerful.
Q also has the wonderful benefit of making you belong to something that seems important no matter how weird you are.
Q was the most, what would be the word, certainly anti-racist, but the least bigoted, least discriminatory process of all time.
Was there anybody who said you can't be in Q if you're black?
No. No.
Was there anybody who said you can't be in Q if you're a woman?
No. Can you not be in queue if you lean left?
Nope. Nope.
You could be in queue no matter how weird you were, and you could be sure that nobody else in queue would call you out for being weird.
I mean, I'm sure it happened on message boards and stuff, but it would be trivial.
You could be as weird as you wanted, and I use weird in a good way, all right?
So when I say weird, that's not a negative, because I like to be weird too, right?
So, different. Let's just say different.
So Q really had the whole package.
It had mystery.
It had something you could do.
Have I told you that if somebody can get you to physically do something, it binds you to them?
So that's why when I would do a presentation back in my corporate days, I would hand out Tic Tacs.
Or I would ask a question that caused them to raise their hands.
Because the first thing you want to do if you're trying to influence people is get them to do something physically.
And Q got them to do their own research.
So if you were to study, you know, persuasion and what moves people, Q had the whole package.
I mean, Q didn't leave anything on the table.
Accidentally, I think.
Like, I don't think somebody thought this up in advance and said, if we put together these elements, it'll be the strongest thing anybody's ever seen.
But they did end up that way.
It ended up that way.
Here's another benefit.
Q gives you the illusion of understanding the world for the first time.
How exciting is it to think that you'd finally understood the world?
Really exciting.
That's a pretty big payoff.
And Q offered that. Somebody coined the phrase, conspirituality.
Conspirituality. Meaning that Q filled some need that people just automatically biologically have for something like spiritualism or something like a religion.
And that the thought is that Q sort of filled that for some people.
I'm a little less persuaded by that because I think most of these people had a religion already.
Here's a question for you.
Wouldn't it be easy to deprogram Q If the major media kept a running list of all the predictions and then reported the outcomes as they happened.
Wouldn't that take care of it?
Now, in the beginning, you could argue, oh, we're not sure if the predictions are panning out or not, but we think they look good.
But at this point, you could just list all of the Q predictions, And you could just fact-check them.
And then every time there was a queue supporter, you say, hey, here's a link.
Boom. Go to here.
Now, I do believe that individuals have made these lists, people trying to argue with other people online.
But has CNN ever presented the Daniel Dale fact-checked list of every queue prediction and every result?
Wouldn't that be obvious? Because CNN would like to deprogram Q, and the biggest reason is because it's not accurate.
And they've got a fact checker.
He's on the payroll.
He could probably work through that Q stuff in one afternoon, and then it would be a permanent page, and every person who had a Q addiction, you just send them to the page, and you just step out of it.
Because, like I said, calling people stupid or misinformed never works.
People have to talk themselves out of this sort of thing.
You just need to give them time and space to do it.
So you just say, you know, you follow Q. Q's made a lot of predictions.
How'd they do? And then just step out.
That's all. But you do not see CNN or any of the mainstream media doing that list to try to program the Q people.
Do you know why? Probably because they don't want to.
I think the only reason is they don't want to debunk it.
Or let me say it better.
They don't want to debunk it effectively.
The best place for CNN to be, profit-wise, is to debunk it in a way that all of their viewers think is pretty persuasive, but would have no effect on it staying or going.
CNN could just put Q out of business.
That's it. They just report what their predictions were.
That's it. It's out of business.
But they won't do it.
You'll never see that.
All right. If the vaccine, the Johnson& Johnson vaccine has a risk for younger women, which we're still looking into, there's some indication it might, why did they stop giving it to men?
Is there something we don't know?
And it's a serious question, right?
If the only adverse effects were 100% women, why'd you stop giving it to men?
Now, I think the Nate Silver point was that if you added all the adverse risks together, it's still so small that you're way better off getting the vaccination.
But forget about that.
We have, as far as I know, no indication that men are in any way affected.
Why don't you just give it to the men That frees up other vaccinations for the women, the ones that don't seem to have this problem.
Right? Just give it to men.
Unless there's something they know about it that we don't know, so I'd worry about that.
Did you see the headline that former Bachelor lead Colton Underwood, he had some personal news he needed to share with the world.
Did you see that story?
And this is a big surprise, but the personal news Is that the guy who was on The Bachelor came out as gay.
Now, I would like to ask a provocative question.
I will preface this provocative question with the following.
If you've been watching me for a while, you know that I'm a great supporter of the LGBTQ community, especially transgender folks.
And so everything I say from this point on is meant with respect.
Okay? Because it could easily be misinterpreted.
So now that I've staged you a little bit, can anybody tell me why gay people look gay?
Is that confirmation bias?
Because I saw this story, and I'm actually just asking, because confirmation bias is so powerful that when I saw this story, and I saw a photo of Colton Underwood, and he had teased that he was later going to tell us what his personal secret was, I looked at the picture and said, he's obviously gay.
And then he came out as gay.
Was there anybody who looked at his picture after you...
This is the important part. After you'd heard that he was going to come out with some personal news, he kind of knew it was going to be gay, right?
You didn't have to be a genius to figure that out.
But when you looked at his picture, once you'd been primed with that thought that he was going to come out as gay...
Didn't he look gay? Right?
Is it just me?
And again, this is with complete respect.
Complete respect. There's no disrespect meant in any of this interrogation.
But, you know, the gay population has been saying forever, and I think science backs them, that it's not a lifestyle choice.
You're kind of born...
You're born gay.
Which I completely accept as true.
Now, if you're born gay, could it ever show up in your face?
Like, could you?
Because I think they've actually tested the so-called gaydar, and I believe that gay men can actually detect just from the face people who are more likely to be gay.
I think that's a real thing, right?
Somebody says unproven, and I'll take your note as valuable there.
Yeah, I don't know that the science has determined that for sure.
But here's the question. Is it confirmation bias?
Because I've seen this guy, Colton Underwood, a bunch of times.
I've seen him in the context of The Bachelor.
Not once, when I saw him in his previous context, not once did my mind say, oh, he looks gay, why is he on The Bachelor?
Not once. But the moment he teased it, he totally looked gay to me.
Did that happen to you?
I'm just wondering if you had the same experience.
And again, with complete respect, it's just a curiosity I have.
All right. I'll look for your comments.
So Tucker Carlson's getting in trouble from CNN and all of his enemies for using the word replacement, because apparently that's a word that is used by anti-Semitic people and people who think that brown people will...
We'll replace white people in the United States.
But Tucker has been using the word replacement, as in, you know, replacing people who are here.
And I'm a little bit undecided on this.
So I'm going to work through this in public, okay?
One of the things we like about Tucker is that he won't bow to the woke crowd, right?
It's the best thing about him.
I mean, his show is terrific.
But, you know, if you're to name one thing, is that he seems unusually resistant to being forced to talk the way he's being told to talk or use the words that he has to use or anything.
So when he uses the word replacement, he doesn't cage it in this theory that the racists do.
It's more of a just descriptive.
That if The country has a certain character, and people like it that way, and you bring in anybody from anywhere else, it doesn't matter their ethnicity.
It doesn't matter. People want to make it about that.
But if you bring in any other population that has a different culture or different Preferences, priorities, different anything.
It's going to change what you got.
And in a political sense, the people who are here will have less voting power because there'll be fewer of them compared to new people coming in.
And if somebody wants to say that's a replacement, and I have to think that Tucker is aware that that specific word is triggering.
So here's where I'm Here's where I'm on the fence on this.
So help me through this.
On one hand, as a communicator, myself, I would never use a word that I knew would be a distraction.
Because Tucker is trying to make a point, but then his point is completely lost because he used that word.
So if you're just trying to be a good communicator, would you use that word?
If you knew it was going to cause all the attention to be sucked out of your point...
And brought to a whole different point.
Or, do we appreciate and praise Tucker because...
Can I have permission to swear?
Everybody? Can I give you a little warning?
There's an F-bomb coming up.
Hide the children. Put earmuffs on the pets.
If Tucker Carlson is told you can't use the common word replacement...
And Tucker Carlson is saying, in effect, fuck you.
I kind of like that.
Don't you? I mean, I like the fact there's somebody taking a stand, that I'm going to use words as words.
And you can't tell me not to use these words.
I wouldn't do it.
In other words, that's not the way I would play it, because I would put more value on communicating without distracting.
But I like that there are people who do.
I'm always in favor of what I would call a creative tension.
It's good to have people on both sides of everything.
It really is.
Because that's how you test each other.
And having Tucker on the other side of this, can I use this word or can I not, I think it's valuable.
Even though I wouldn't do it.
And even though I think he's drawing more criticism than he needs, really.
Somebody says, I don't know if he's using it for shock value, and we don't know what he's thinking, but I'm just glad he exists as a pushback, although I would not play it the same way myself.
All right. According to Rasmussen, they asked about whether...
They find that 29% of likely U.S. voters say laws requiring photo identification at the polls discriminate against some voters.
So almost 30% say the requirement ID discriminates.
62% say voter ID laws don't discriminate.
Here's my problem with this question.
So this is a Rasmussen poll.
My question is, don't people define discriminate differently?
Because how could you...
You can't really argue that it changes the racial outcome, do you?
Is there anybody who's consuming news who doesn't know that if you institute voter ID, it will change the number of people who vote by ethnicity?
I thought everybody knew that.
And isn't that discrimination?
So here's the tough part.
It's discrimination by a fact.
I don't think that's even in conversation, is it?
I believe both the Democrats and the Republicans are firmly in the same camp that there will be fewer black voters if you make this change.
And that's why the Democrats are arguing, and that's why the Republicans want to do it, because they're both on the same side, that it will have a racial outcome, which Republicans think will favor them.
So... That just begs the question of how did you define discriminate?
Because if you ask me, does it discriminate?
I would say, of course it does.
But you have to do it anyway.
Do you know what else discriminates?
Everything. Everything.
We don't stop doing everything.
Because it all has a racial outcome.
Because it does. It has total racial outcomes.
Gender outcomes. Everything we do discriminates.
So if you ask me, does this discriminate?
I'd say, well, yeah, it does.
But we have to do it.
Because the reason for doing it is better than the discrimination.
That's why anything happens.
Do you know who discriminates terribly?
The military.
Try getting in the military.
If you're out of shape or you have a weight problem or you're blind, you've got a disability, you're a woman and you want to be in certain parts of the military, the military is the most discriminating thing in the world.
But we allow it because we think getting the most effective killing force is more important than all of those So I worry about a question that says, does something discriminate?
Because I think just people are looking at it differently.
That is my show for today.
Or you're old, somebody says.
I don't know what that means. Somebody says, dismiss Malcolm Nance.
Your thinking is suspect.
Nobody takes Malcolm Nance seriously, do they?
I didn't think there was anybody left who thought he was a credible player about anything.
He's sort of like, his record is sort of Q-like, I think.
Isn't there something like practical discrimination?
Yeah, you don't even need words for it.
Discrimination is just universal.
There's no big policy or public thing you can do that doesn't have a disproportionate effect on somebody.
You know, taxes, everything.
All right, here's a good comment I want to take on.
So, wrong way to look at the Tucker thing, Scott.
He doesn't need to be on eggshells with a bunch of people who throw around the words white supremacists.
Well, no, you're agreeing.
You just agreed with me.
I'm saying that he's a valuable pushback to the people who are word warriors.
So I think you just said the same thing.
You didn't disagree with me. Any comments on Lindell?
Again, Mike Lindell is such a useful force in the world.
And that doesn't mean he's right.
It just means, aren't you glad you live in a world where there can be a Mike Lindell?
Somebody who's got F you money, and he's got an opinion.
If his opinion about the election turned out to be more right than we understand at the moment...
That would be really, really important.
But wait, what if he's wrong?
What if he does all this and manages to get more transparency and when you've really looked into it, you just can't find anything?
Still good. Still good.
Mike Lindell is a patriot and a national treasure.
Not only did he show the world that you can be addicted to cocaine, Turn your life around and be a big success, which is a really good message, frankly.
Like, what could be more positive than to say, I had my legal troubles, my addiction troubles, and here I am, I'm the pillow king.
Everybody needs to hear that.
And number two, like I said, every big issue, we need this creative tension.
And he's one of the biggest people creating that creative tension.
And no matter which way it goes, and I actually don't know which way it'll go, you'll either win or lose.
But boy, it's good to have that creative tension.
We need that. So he's a national hero, in my opinion, no matter where this ends up.
It's his faith that got him there, somebody saying.
Could be. Ron says, Tucker is brilliant and entertaining, which is a big threat to the left.
Yeah. Yeah.
Tucker is...
Tucker is really good at being Tucker Carlson in all the right ways.
And I've got to say, I don't agree with his opinions quite often.
I was watching yesterday, and he had a whole segment that I didn't agree with any of it.
But again, he's still a national treasure because people are not doing what he's doing.
Was your secret anything to do with physics discoveries?
No. It's a perceptual thing.
There's a perceptual thing happening in the country that I can't call it out.
And I can't tell you why I can't call it out.
But it's really big.
And it's shocking.
I didn't think...
Well, that's all I can say about it.
Remote viewing? No, I don't think remote viewing is real.
Can I tell you something that...
I think enough time has gone by that I can tell you a secret.
You want to hear a secret? So, many years ago, maybe 20 or more years ago, there was a fellow who was a Dilbert fan whose job was to research ESP for the government.
Yes, such a person existed.
There was a real person who was in charge of finding out if telepathy, remote viewing, and these other things were real.
What do you think he found?
So I spent some time with him and got to ask any question I wanted.
We spent an afternoon together.
I got to find out what is the best knowledge anybody has, because he worked for the government, right?
So you could get the best knowledge there was on this.
Is it new? Somebody says it's not news.
The news part is that I talked to him personally.
So whatever you heard in the news, do you think it's true?
You've been watching the news long enough to know that if it was in the news, no.
I hear the name Dean Radden.
I also talked to him, but he's not who I'm talking about.
So Dean Radden is part of the story, and I had some brief contact with him years ago.
Well, it doesn't matter who it is, because it's somebody whose name you wouldn't recognize, but the point is, I got to see what he believed based on his work, and there was a belief that at least the remote viewing couldn't be explained away.
So that's where it was.
So all of the things like ordinary ESP, you couldn't find any of that.
So if it existed, it would be trace amounts, nothing you could weaponize.
It wouldn't be useful if it exists at all, and probably doesn't.
Dean Radden thinks he found evidence of it, but that's controversial.
But the remote viewing, at least as of that day, there was one person who had studied it deeply for the government, Who believes that there was at least one person whose remote viewing couldn't be explained by luck.
Now, what was my reaction to that?
I didn't believe any of it.
I didn't believe any of it.
I didn't believe the remote viewing.
I didn't believe any of it.
Doesn't mean I'm wrong.
I mean, it doesn't mean it's right.
I mean, who knows? But I didn't believe any of it.
So, there's your secret.
I did once have a private conversation, extended conversation, with the person who knew the most, literally knew the most, about this whole area, and I didn't find anything there.
Remote viewing is when a person who claims to be able to see things at a distance would describe, for example, a A Soviet nuclear submarine base, and it could even draw a picture of it.
And then when the base was found on satellite, they would compare the picture drawn to the actual satellite, and it would be like spooky close.
Does that prove it was real?
No. Because here's why I don't take you seriously.
If you and I tried to draw a picture of a Let's say a nuclear submarine base in Russia.
Don't you think that your sort of engineering brain that decides how things should look wouldn't be that different than the person who actually designed the base?
Right? So I could see that I could do remote viewing, which would end up by coincidence, but not really coincidence because people think alike, that whoever built the base Doesn't have a brain that's that different from somebody imagining the base.
See where I'm going? So I think the remote viewing is sort of a constructive imagination that's not too far off from the person who is being remote viewed.
And if they think alike as humans, you can guess a lot of things just because people think alike.
