Episode 2038 Scott Adams: Trump CPAC Speech, The Elite White Media's Destructive Propaganda Machine
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
The Grand Reframe fixes everything race related
7 forensic experts vs. FBI
President Trump's CPAC speech
List of racist things I support
Hyperbole or intentionally triggering?
Racism vs. Classism
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to Coffee with Scott Adams.
It's a highlight of civilization.
I know, it doesn't seem like that every day, does it?
But today it is.
It's a highlight of civilization.
And if you'd like your experience here to get even better, it's hard to believe, but it could actually get a little bit better.
All you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tanker, chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Thank you, Paul.
There, it's better with a microphone, isn't it?
Everything's better with sound.
Well, 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.
Good save by Paul on the local community.
Where we are all supportive of each other.
It's a wonderful place.
Be they white or black, male or female, LGBTQ or whatever's not that.
We're all working together over at the locals subscription site.
But let's talk about the news.
Anybody watch SNL last night?
Anybody?
I hear I was on it.
So I finally made it to SNL.
Yeah, it was a dream of mine.
Well, it wasn't exactly the way I imagined it, but hey, I was on SNL and probably you weren't.
So I got that going for me.
Anyway.
There's somebody who's tweeting for the government's National Park Service that apparently has a sense of humor.
And so a number of the tweets from the National Park Service have been funny.
But here's my favorite.
"If you come across a bear, never push a slower friend down, even if you feel the friendship has run its course." Now, that's some good tweeting.
That is some good tweeting.
I think on SNL I was on the Weekend Update, so nobody played me as a character.
Oh, there's tragic news today that Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway and husband George Conway announced that they're going to get divorced.
Now, who saw that coming?
Alright, we're private now, on locals.
Who saw that coming?
Oh, that's right, everyone.
You know what my theory was?
Did you all have a theory about what was going on in that marriage?
It would be hard not to have a theory, right?
Because you'd look at it and go, how does that work?
Where George insults his wife's boss every day on television.
How in the world is that going to work?
And I had this hypothesis I was working on, that it was sort of a sex game, where George would insult Kellyanne Conway's boss And then she'd get home, you know what I mean?
And then she would punish him for being so bad.
That's the only thing I could figure out, is that she was a dominatrix and nothing else quite fit.
But maybe it was boring and it was just a bad marriage.
I would be very disappointed to hear it was exactly what it looked like.
I want to know there's some whole back story that we'll never know.
Like something really interesting.
But probably not.
Probably not.
I asked this question on Twitter, speaking of famous people in the news.
If you see a news story about any political story that you haven't heard before, or something a famous person did, What percentage of the time is it true, and in context, so that you actually see the accurate picture?
It's close to never.
Now, the funny thing is that because of Gelman amnesia, it's called, there's a Gelman, I never know how to pronounce his name, but it's either Gelman, starts with a G, or Gelman.
I always say Gel.
I think that's it.
But Gell-Mann amnesia, I've talked about it before, it's where there's something you know about personally, let's say you're an expert in a field, and you see a news story about it, and you know that that's wrong, that news story, because you're the expert.
But the very next story you read, you think it's probably true.
And you notice that all the ones where you know a lot about the story, without the news itself, you know the news is wrong, But all the ones where you don't have any expertise or special vision, you think, well, that's probably right.
And the funny thing is, especially in my case, because as a public figure, there are thousands of articles get written about me over the course of my career, and I get to see how accurate they are.
And so time after time, the story about me is inaccurate in really basic ways.
I mean, in this last week, the news reported that I was far-right, and also another major news reported I was a Democrat.
That's the same week.
We're talking about major news entities here, not small outlets or anything.
So how accurate do you think is any news you have about the Conways?
George and Kellyanne.
Not.
Probably there's some story there that you've never heard and that's the thing that explains it all.
Just don't know what that would be.
I saw this fascinating tweet from Brian Romelli on Twitter.
A great person to follow.
Amazing, amazing tweets about all kinds of stuff.
But anyway, his last name is spelled R-O-E-M-M-E-L-E.
Brian.
If you search for that, he'll pop up.
Anyway, he had a tweet that there was some group of early humans, not as in prehistoric, but I guess, at least, let's see, what would be the way to say it?
Maybe around the time of the pyramids or something like that, but not prehistoric.
And this group was the Waras, W-A-R-A-S.
Now, I Googled it and I couldn't find it.
So I think this is true.
Ancient?
Oh, you'd say ancient?
That would be good.
Ancient peoples.
And they had genetically elongated skulls and were direct ancestors of the Inca elite.
And they're the creators of the Andes' megalithic constructions in the Lunar Andina dynasty, pre- and post-Diluvian.
If you saw the picture, they're not cone heads because the cone doesn't go straight up.
It's sort of like from the jaw, you know, sort of more back.
But it's like this tall.
It's like this giant elongated thing.
And I look at that and I think, well, at first I think aliens, right?
The first thing I think is aliens.
But the second thing I think is, What if the reason that they could build pyramids and, you know, megalithic structures, but nobody knows how to do it now?
You know, with the tools they have, nobody knows how to do it.
What if they were just smarter?
What if there were some ancient people who didn't have technology, because it hadn't been invented, but they just had huge brains, and they were just, like, insanely smart?
That's totally possible, isn't it?
You wouldn't see their technology, I think, because it wasn't long enough that they survived, probably, that they could build silicon chips and stuff like that.
I don't think it was from head-binding.
I think it was genetic, but I don't know.
Maybe not, huh?
Maybe it wasn't.
Yeah, you think maybe it's Atlantis or they mated with aliens or something.
But I like to just think that there were people with super big heads that were just super smart.
And they did all the stuff we can't figure out today.
That's my theory.
I'm going to stick with it.
All right.
I'll talk about my drama a little bit later, but we'll get to that.
I came up with a word.
I coined a word that I think you might find useful.
Both at work and on social media.
Have you ever been in this kind of conversation where somebody would say, XYZ is true, and you say, no, that was debunked a long time ago.
And then what's the next thing they say?
Well, let's see a link to that.
Where's that proof?
Show me the proof.
And here's my new word to dismiss them.
As I tweeted today, I'm not your Google bitch.
Everyone has access to that tool.
Now the important part is Google bitch is one word.
It's not Google space bitch.
Because that would sound... I'm not your Google bitch.
So that would be confusing.
It's one word.
You're a Google bitch.
No, I'm not your Google bitch.
You have access to the tool.
You can Google yourself.
So try it out.
You might like it.
Yeah.
I'm not your Google bitch.
There are blizzards in California.
So apparently to all you Californians in Texas, hell froze over.
Am I right?
Okay, I just have to put that one in there.
But when you have a snowstorm in California, And people are not ready, because apparently it's snowing in some places.
They're not used to it.
They've got blizzards.
Like, you know, a lot of snow where there shouldn't be any.
And people are running out of supplies.
They can't get anywhere.
There's medical problems.
It's pretty bad.
I was reading a Joel Pollack article in Breitbart today.
Apparently, Newsom's on vacation.
I guess he declared some kind of a state emergency or something.
That might help.
I'm not entirely sure how much the government needs to be there in a snowstorm, but it's notable.
It's notable.
Because we talked about Trump going to Ohio, and everybody thought that was the greatest thing.
This whole business of leaders visiting disaster places, it feels like it's just essential, doesn't it?
Yeah, there was a time I used to dismiss it as just a photo op.
I thought it was just something for the benefit of the politician.
But I don't think it's for the benefit of the politician anymore.
I used to think that was the only reason it happened.
Oh, the president has to get some TV time to look empathetic.
It's good for his voting.
But I feel like it's just good for the people.
Right?
If the president visits, I feel like all of the support people who help in a disaster are going to up their game.
You don't want the president to hit the ground and start complaining about FEMA.
Right?
You don't want everybody coming up to the president saying, we're not getting any help.
So as soon as the president says I'm going to visit, I've got a feeling everybody just takes it up a level.
So it's probably a good thing.
Can you believe that, I think he's the top tennis player in the world, male tennis player, Djokovic, he can't get a vaccine waiver request for the United States still.
He's actually banned from playing tennis in the U.S.
Open.
Like, I thought I was reading news from the past.
Can you believe that?
And then, apparently, I think Congress is trying to get an exception for him, and Thomas Massey accurately points out, why would you make an exception for one person when you should just get rid of the whole thing?
Like, it doesn't make sense to, like, do a whole legislation just for one person when you know it all has to go away.
And why would you do it for one person?
Like, if it's a good idea, why would you make an exception?
So, I mean, you don't want to make that kind of exception in a pandemic.
Yeah, just get rid of it.
It really destroys credibility in the government at this point.
The government is not making itself look good by keeping this on.
They might want to make themselves look good, if not us.
I saw this quote on Twitter.
Everyone I know from hairdresser to the butcher says that they no longer watch the news on TV or read the newspaper.
Because I do this and I have an audience that follows the news, I am so in my own bubble about what the average person pays attention to.
It's hard for me to even conceive.
But I will tell you that here's a conversation I have on a regular basis with ordinary people.
Now, by ordinary, I mean normal, as opposed to freaks like us who are obsessing on the news and social media.
Here's a typical conversation which I've had a number of times.
So you know Jordan Peterson, right?
And then I think I'm going to go on to my story.
And then I get, who?
Jordan.
Jordan Peterson.
So I, what?
Who?
You've never heard of Jordan Peterson.
No.
Seriously.
I don't know how many times I've had this conversation.
Seriously.
You're a living human being in the world and you've never heard of Jordan Peterson?
And I can do the same thing with Andrew Tate.
You think everybody knows Andrew Tate.
But I've had this conversation.
I said, you know, Andrew Tate has cancer or whatever.
He doesn't.
That was a rumor.
And people would be like, who?
Never heard of him.
You know people who don't know Elon Musk.
Yeah, it's hard to really wrap your head around what your world is like if you're not obsessing on this stuff like we are.
Well, why would it be that people don't follow the news?
Why would it be?
Well, if you saw a tweet by the Rasmussen poll people today mocking The Economist and fact-checking them for a shoddy hit piece on me, So I feel like The Economist used to be a respectable publication.
But then you see how many facts they got wrong, because Rasmussen just called it out in the article one at a time.
It's just crazy.
It's just crazy.
And Rasmussen only called out the errors they made talking about the poll.
And still it was like two pages with that.
That's not even starting.
The conversation about me, and the article was about me.
I didn't read it, of course.
But imagine how many errors there were, or misinterpretations, I guess would be better, in that.
Do you think anything in that article, and I haven't read it, but besides the polling stuff that they got wrong, and keep in mind, they got the polling stuff wrong, and they're the economists.
That's the stuff they should get right.
They should get that right.
You bet it's a good read.
I doubt it.
Unless you want the truth.
All right, so The Economist and pretty much all the news about me.
Well, let me ask you.
For those of you who know the entire three-act story about me, the recent racist rant drama, but only the people who know the full three acts, including yesterday's video, right?
Now, you know that I called it in advance.
I told you it was a three-act play, and then I delivered all three acts.
Now, if you've watched the news coverage, but you've also watched me from the beginning, how accurate was the news about me?
Go.
How accurate was the news about me in this situation?
I'm seeing zero to 25%.
to 25%, yeah, maybe 25%.
Nobody's got over 50% yet.
So there's nobody who's aware of the story from start to finish who thinks that the news coverage in the major media, we're talking about your most trusted sources, it's completely wrong.
Now social media is even worse in terms of their understanding of what happened, but it's not their job to be right.
The users on Twitter They can be excused for being fooled by the news, which those of you who know the actual story.
Now, one of the things you learn by watching my story, because I'm so transparent and you've seen me for a while, you know with your own certainty what parts of the story are wrong.
Because you've seen me, you saw what they said, you can compare them.
It's pretty easy.
You should take that with you to every other story about anybody who's a public figure.
They're pretty much all wrong.
And wrong in the most important ways.
I'm not talking about you got a date wrong or something like that.
Fundamentally, most of them are wrong.
Now there's some major stories about me coming out maybe today, I don't know, or early this week.
Watch how wrong those stories are.
It'll be sensational.
Like, really crazy.
But fun to watch.
So, this could be one reason that people don't watch the news, is they don't think it's real.
And I also think that the reason that black Americans were way more likely to say, well, hold on, let's see what he's saying, instead of jumping to a conclusion.
Black America came out really well in this, by the way.
There are a lot of surprises, I guess.
But one of them is, black Americans didn't trust the news.
So they listened to what I had to say.
They're like, well, that doesn't sound good.
But what are you saying?
And then when I said it, I would get completely reasonable responses.
Mostly, right?
There's always some radicals.
But mostly, people were curious.
I explained it.
We had a good conversation.
It was pretty good.
And I continued to get invitations from black podcasters who wanted to know more.
And I will happily give it to them.
So here's a little pattern I noticed.
Now this is just pattern recognition, and I'm not going to say this is science or a fact.
But I want to see if it sounds like a pattern you've noticed.
It goes like this.
Both the right and the left will sometimes believe things that are untrue.
Can we agree on that?
It's not limited to one side?
We do agree on that, right?
That both the left and the right can be wrong about stuff?
Okay.
But there's something different about how wrong they are and why.
There's a difference in the wrongness.
And see if you've noticed this pattern.
That the left's untruths are more likely to be deliberate hoaxes.
And the things that the right believes that are not true, usually, or organically, they came up from other Republicans or conservatives.
You know, there's usually somebody who believes something's true, and they put it on the internet, 4chan or Reddit or someplace, and then other people see it and they go, that's very convincing, I'll believe that too.
So, that's a real qualitative difference.
The left is actually concocting hoaxes that are rather elaborate.
Everything from Hunter's laptop was Russian disinformation to the Russia collusion hoax.
There's a lot of complexity to keep the drinking bleach hoax alive and the find people hoax alive.
These are manufactured hoaxes.
Now, the drinking bleach and the fine people is manufactured in the sense that it's obvious taking stuff out of context.
It's just obvious.
If you've seen the context, it's obvious how the hoaxes were done.
So, do you see this?
Do you see the pattern?
And what it means is that the left plays elaborate hoaxes on themselves.
Because although the hoax is meant for everybody, The people on the right don't believe them.
Did you ever believe Russia collusion?
Was there ever a moment, because most of you lean right if you're watching this, did you ever think that Hunter's laptop, did you ever think it wasn't real?
I never thought that.
It never even occurred to me that it wasn't real.
Of course I thought it was real.
So I was just guessing, speculating, because I didn't know.
But I think that the left's lies are as much about getting the people on the left to conform and vote for them as I just don't see many people on the right believing them.
So here's a summary.
When the people on the right buy into some theory that isn't true, they're at least being honest.
Like, nobody lied.
Nobody lied.
They just were trying to figure something out and maybe they got it wrong.
But on the left, somebody intentionally got a bunch of people together, or they just knew what to do, and they said, we're going to lie.
That's not the same.
That is not the same at all.
Now, I know somebody, if there were more people on the left here, they'd say, what about those emails at Fox News?
To which I say, I saw those and all I saw was that the hosts respected their audience and wanted to give them topics that the audience wanted to hear.
That's all I heard.
I didn't hear any kind of immoral or unethical anything.
It looked like they were just trying to figure out what the audience wanted to hear.
Which is part of the job.
All right, how many of you who are watching saw what I call the grand reframe, which was the third act reveal for what started as the racist rant.
And I got a really good response to that.
Really good response.
Because the reason I call it the grand reframe is that it's the one that fixes everything, at least everything with Everything related to race relations, which were being driven apart by the media narrative.
So here's the summary of it, if you didn't see it.
If you want to see it with pictures and larger explanation, I recommend it.
It goes like this.
In Act 1, I did my racist rant, which, as all observers said, Scott, you had to know, when you did that, it was going to cause trouble.
To which I say, that's why I did it.
Of course I had to know.
I didn't know it would be this much trouble.
I mean, I certainly didn't plan to get canceled worldwide in Dilbert, which had nothing to do with this.
I thought my risk was more like YouTube would cancel me.
I thought it would be like, oh, YouTube bans you, so I'll just go over to Rumble.
I thought my worst case scenario was, well, I'll just do my videos on Locals and then Rumble instead of YouTube.
No biggie.
But what happened was that it turned into a political thing instead of a race thing.
If it had stayed within my audience, you all know my pattern by now.
I get you all worked up on something and then we try to work on it.
It's kind of a thing I do.
So if it stayed there, it wouldn't have been anything.
It just would have been a provocative thing that once I explained it, you'd say, oh, I see what you're doing.
But once it became gigantic, the reason it went from like a minor kerfuffle to national news is because it's political.
And in the end, this pattern was not obvious at first, in the end it was just white Democrats that cancelled me.
Do you know why I say that no black Democrats cancelled me?
Do you know why?
They don't own anything.
Now that's an exaggeration, obviously, right?
They do own things.
But in terms of the major newspapers, etc., mostly a bunch of white people.
So a bunch of Democrats.
So a bunch of white Democrats cancelled me.
Black Americans mostly said, as I said, hey, there's a topic I want to hear more about.
And then So in the second act is all the cancellations and the reaction.
So if this were a movie, it would be the string of cancellations and all the kerfuffle about that.
And then if it's a movie, and by the way, I call down all three acts before we write at the beginning.
The third act is where the protagonist of the movie is in such deep trouble That there's no way to survive.
That's what the cancellations were.
So the grand reframe is the plot reveal where you find out what this was all about.
And you find out if it was worth it.
So basically the hill I decided to die on is that we have to reject the Let's say the elite media brainwashing that our biggest variable in 2023 is racial division.
The only reason we think it's our biggest variable is because they keep telling us that.
Now, I don't mean that the elites got in a room and they had a meeting.
I mean that when you follow the money, it's always predictable.
And the people who are elite, the rich ones, the last thing they want is for poor people of all colors to get together and say, you know what?
We poor people have a lot in common.
So maybe we should change things.
And then rich people would get to keep less of their stuff.
But if the rich can keep you fighting over race, then you think that's the problem.
And you don't come from my money.
So As a rich white guy, it would be in my best interest to keep the racial division high.
But instead, I'm going to try to take it out.
I'm going to try to kneecap it.
And here's the high ground maneuver, which I talk about all the time, persuasion-wise.
It's in the reframe.
And the reframe is this.
That systemic racism is real, and by the way, any Republican who says that's not real, nobody will take you seriously when you say that.
It's not a good persuasion strategy.
You should say it's real, and it fits the form of, specifically, education is bad for black people more than other people by percentage, because they're in a deeper hole.
So the reframe is to get away from arguing about race and working on personal success strategies.
Because in my, it's my observation that, well let me do this based on a comic that somebody sent.
I don't know if you saw it.
It was a comic about There were two kids.
They looked like maybe 10 years old.
And there was a white one and a black one.
Somebody sent this to me to make a point today, but it made opposite point than they thought.
And the point was, you see the white kid standing on the shoulders of the black one to get up on some ledge.
And then once the white one's up there, the black guy says, all right, now give me a hand and help me up on this ledge.
And then the white guy says, well, that would be reverse racism.
Now, the comic was supposed to show me, you know, about racism in America.
But that wasn't the point I got.
The point I got is that whoever made that comic had been poisoned.
Because the two kids in that comic should have been working with each other, if they were both poor.
So it should have been that the two of them would know to work with each other.
Why did they not work with each other?
Because remember, these were two kids in the modern time.
Why would these two modern kids, a black and a white, not work with each other?
And the reason is they've been taught not to, largely.
And secondly, they should both get together and work on their personal success skills, specifically.
Now what would happen if the black kid in that comic and the white kid in that comic Said, hey, you know what would really be good?
If we learned techniques for success.
Which are learnable, they're very, you know, easy to learn.
And then they go out and they get a bunch of success things, they do well in school, and then they both graduate.
And they go work for a big corporation.
Which one can't be promoted because of ESG?
Yeah, the white kid can't even get promoted.
So if the black kid and the white kid work together to increase their personal success skills, and they both got corporate jobs, the ESG program, which is trying to improve diversity within corporations, would largely guarantee that the black kid got the promotion before the white kid.
Right?
Lyle, do you disagree?
Lyle, do you disagree with that?
That two equally qualified candidates, the point of ESG is to promote the black kid in that situation.
That's the whole point of it.
That's why ESG exists.
It wouldn't exist except to do that very thing.
There's no other, you know, there's an environmental part, but there's also the social and governance part, the diversity part.
So even that comic, which was trying to mock me, was just a victim of the narrative.
It was a black kid and a white kid who absolutely should have been on the same side, if they wanted to maximize their benefit.
And it would maximize the black kid's benefit more than the white kid, in that case.
All right.
Here's Dr. Joel Brown.
He's a good tweeter.
And he said, Dr. Joel Brown is black, which is important to this story.
It wouldn't be important otherwise, but it's important to this story.
And he tweets, we need to stop referring to a race of people as a community.
The black or white community is a false category that arbitrarily bunches people together as a cohesive interdependent group based on the relative proportion of melanin in their skin.
It's a persuasive illusion.
Perfect.
Perfect.
Well, what is the one thing that when I talk to any, let's say, black podcaster or just anybody on social media who's black, one of the main things that I hear back is, don't think that black people are a monolith.
We're all diverse.
We have different, you know, some are conservative, blah, blah, blah.
And of course, of course, Does anybody believe that's not true?
Is there any group of people where they're all alike?
I've never seen one.
So, this is a good point.
When we say it's a community, what exactly does that mean?
I feel like you're averaging things that shouldn't be averaged, or clumping things that don't need to be clumped.
This is all part of the weird media narrative, isn't it?
We're being forced to call them communities, and they call each other communities, but it's just the one wrong way to sort things if you want to fix anything.
Well, even Joe Manchin, he's a right-leaning Democrat, but he's saying ESG will ruin the economy.
Now, he's a coal guy and a carbon guy, so he doesn't like the environmental part.
But any kind of an outside force that puts a drag on a company could be horrible for the economy.
And I think it is.
So we may be seeing a turn on ESG.
Maybe.
So here's, remember I told you it's hard to know what's true when you talk about public figures.
Do you remember Keith Ranere was head of Nexium?
That so-called sex cult?
And he got convicted of... I don't know how much he got convicted of the cult stuff, but the biggest problem was he got convicted for some underage stuff.
So, a teenage girl.
That was the allegation.
Now there are seven forensic experts who confirmed that FBI agents manipulated the key evidence, the photographs, or more than one, I don't know, found on his laptop.
So apparently there's evidence, or an allegation based on evidence, that the FBI planted evidence on his laptop.
Now, when you read the story initially, didn't you just assume he was guilty?
He might be.
I don't know.
I don't know if he's guilty or innocent.
But I know seven forensic experts say the FBI planted the key evidence.
And that was pretty important evidence.
It's not the only evidence, so... I'm not going to defend him.
Somebody always says, you apologist.
No, I'm not defending him.
I'm describing that the news about him... I don't think you can trust any of it.
The whole sex cult part of it was completely misinterpreted.
Like, you know, because I talked to Nikki Klein, so I had a better idea of what was happening there than the news did, apparently.
So pretty much everything about that story was misleading or just flat-out wrong, or possibly faked.
I don't know.
What about the Andrew Tate story?
We already had cancer, but then that turned out not to be true.
Now, last night, Tucker Carlson got into this, and he was talking about how the Tate brothers have been held for months on no specific charges, although we've heard all kinds of allegations.
And Tucker seemed to suggest that the real story is that he pissed off, I think, the Biden administration, and the Biden administration might have leaned on Romania to pick him up, and now they're looking for a crime.
Now, I don't know if that's true.
I do not know if that's true.
But do you think, here's a general question, do you think that what we know about the Tate story is accurate?
Do you think anything we know about that story is true?
Almost impossible.
It's almost impossible that that story is true.
Now, I'm not saying he did nothing wrong, because remember, I hate him personally.
I hate Andrew Tate, for just personal reasons, not based on what he says.
But I don't believe anything about that story, except that he's probably in a Romanian custody.
But pretty much the interpretation and why and all that, who knows?
Who knows?
He could have got picked up to be shook down and they're trying to get his Bitcoin from him.
Could be that the Biden administration did something.
Could be some other country.
Could be an individual who had a problem.
It could be anything.
But the one thing you can rule out Is the way it's reported.
That's the only thing you can rule out when it comes to famous people.
You can always rule out the specific way it's reported.
That's definitely not true.
We don't know what is true, but you can rule that out, because it's almost never the case.
How many hoaxes have there been about Trump?
I keep an updated list of Trump-related hoaxes.
News about Trump, the odds of it being true are very low.
Sometimes when it's positive and sometimes when it's negative, it's still a very small chance it's true, or in context.
All right, here's something that not everybody knows.
Did you know that if you take a video clip that says, the sky is blue, that you can remove parts of it until it looks like it said, the sky is red?
Now your common sense says, no, you can't do that by subtraction.
You can't change the whole meaning of a video just by reducing its length, you know, taking off some from the beginning or the end.
But here are three examples where exactly that happened.
The Covington kids hoax.
They didn't alter the video, they just clipped off the part that would have told you the context.
Injecting disinfectant hoax, same thing, they just clipped off the context.
Overfeeding koi fish in Japan, same thing, they cut off the context.
Find people hoax, same thing, they cut off his clarification, and then it looked like he didn't want to clarify.
So those are four well-documented cases where if you said, I saw the video, I saw it myself, you were completely wrong.
I could put comments on slow mode.
I didn't know that was a thing.
I'll look into that.
So YouTube has a slow mode for comments.
But then you'll never see your comment.
Yeah, it's sort of a trade-off.
All right.
Well, so here's my bottom line of this.
In 2023, now you could be forgiven up until the last few years for believing that if you saw it on video, that's all you needed to know.
That was the end of the story.
But in 2023, anytime on social media you say something like, I saw the video and there's no other way to interpret it, that sounds dumb.
That sounds dumb.
Now I'm not saying this is like a generic case.
You might be right, but if you believe that you're right because you saw the video, that's dumb.
20 years ago, if you saw the video, it was probably accurate.
Probably.
But today if you see a video and you say, no, I know what I saw, it's on the video, that's it.
That's just dumb.
Because there are too many examples where the exact problem of reversing its meaning just by cutting off a piece of the video, you don't know the difference.
You can't tell.
So never ever be dumb enough to say, I know it's true because I saw the video and there's no other way to interpret it.
No other way.
Just sounds dumb.
All right.
What else is going on?
I have a theory that this upcoming presidential election, the most effective campaign video will be made by an amateur using AI tools.
What do you think of that prediction?
Now, there'll be tons of campaign ads.
You'll see them.
Most of them will be standard.
But I believe somebody will use AI to make the most effective campaign ad.
And I would further predict that in the future, that's the only kind you're going to see.
Because making real ads is pretty expensive.
But if your followers are making your own ads, some of them might be better than anything you could have done, if there are enough of them.
So that's my prediction.
There'll be an AI-made, or at least aided, campaign video, and it'll be the best one of the 2024 election.
All right, how many of you saw Trump as CPAC?
He gave a big speech.
I note that it got basically no coverage.
I think CNN had one opinion person talk about it.
All right, here's my bottom line on Trump.
As you know, most of you, I'm a single-issue voter this time.
And my single issue is fentanyl.
So I'm liking Vivek Ramaswamy, both because he's smart and he's younger.
I think we need a younger president.
But he is really hard on fentanyl.
Now Trump is also tough on fentanyl, but I liked Vivek's focus on it for now.
Anyway, so the bottom line is I'm not currently endorsing Trump.
I might.
I might later, you know, if he wins the nomination and depends who he's running against, blah blah blah.
But, I mean, have you heard that, is it, RFK Jr.
might run as a Democrat?
Is that true?
Is that like a true rumor?
Bobby Kennedy?
Which Kennedy is it?
Yeah, it's RFK Jr., right?
Wouldn't that be interesting?
Yeah, wouldn't that be interesting?
Because RFK Jr.
has a real good reputation on the right because of his pandemic opinions.
I don't know, it would be an interesting race.
I think I want it to happen.
I think I want it to happen.
Only because if the Republican loses, you want your best choice on the other side.
He might be a really good choice for a Democrat.
If you had to lose to a Democrat, wouldn't you prefer to lose to him?
No.
Because his other opinions seem strong enough that they seem to be based on You know, what makes sense, not on politics.
All right.
Trump came out to the speech with a video package.
So, you know, they do the inspirational video thing before he comes up.
Best one, best one you'll ever see.
The video package that introduced him just made me feel good.
Really well done.
Probably nobody will make one that good.
Then he comes up to speak.
Did you see how well he did at that speech?
So here's some observations.
Number one, his age is not showing, at least in that speech.
His age was not showing.
And he was funnier than usual, because he has more material to work with, because he was president.
So he does these Funny little stories about threatening Putin that he would eliminate Moscow.
And then he laughs and he goes, 10% chance.
He goes, 10% chance.
That's all it took.
And he just laughs at the fact that allegedly, you know, you weren't, I don't think these are necessarily literal stories.
I think they're sort of conceptually directional stories.
I don't know that the details of who said what are accurate.
But these little stories that you can't know if they're true or not, because they were personal conversations, that's his best work.
As long as you're willing to say, all right, I get the idea of what you're saying, but the details I'll accept are hyperbole.
And maybe you string some tails together, as politicians do.
But just the general idea of it is pretty strong in his case.
Anyway, so I would say he was hilarious.
He didn't look like age was a problem.
I still worry about it as time goes by.
He had all the right notes for his bass.
And I was noting how some things that he's been saying for a long time went from things I thought were a bad idea to now, because the environment's changed, they seem like good ideas.
Let me give you an example.
I hated that he kept saying criminals were coming across the border, even though some criminals were clearly coming across the border.
It's because he was saying it in a way that made it too easy to make it a racist kind of thing.
Now, anybody who heard him talk, if you know how to understand words and sentences, you know that he didn't mean every person coming across the border.
was a criminal.
He was not saying that the babies and the women, all criminals.
No, no.
He was just being a little hyperbolic about it so you could fill it in with your own brain.
But as unpleasant as I found that when he first brought it up, now when he talks about it, it actually makes sense.
Because things are so bad now that MS-13 is coming across.
I think there's a... Is there a verified story of Venezuelan prisons being emptied?
Is that a real thing?
Because he talked about prisons being emptied.
So I think this went from something that sounded like a little too close to a racial comment.
I don't think he meant it that way, but it was a little too close and sound.
Now it's something most people would agree with.
Now we know for sure that, I don't know how many, but way too many people are coming across the border.
So that's something that sounded all wrong when he first said it, but now it sounds like just what's happening.
Too many criminals coming across.
If for no other reason than the sheer volume would be more criminals.
Here's another one that I didn't like.
Make America Great Again.
It's one of the most successful, you know, slogans of all time.
I definitely think that.
But I never liked the again part, you know, because it makes it too easy for the other side to say, what do you mean back to slavery?
But look at it from today's perspective.
Make America great again.
The only way I can hear that is like it was before the pandemic.
Right?
The word, again, has now changed meaning from, oh, you mean back in the 50s when we were all, everybody was a racist?
We don't want that.
Now, again, just looks like before the pandemic or before Biden ruined everything, according to Republicans.
So, so isn't that weird?
The two of the things that were his biggest weaknesses, because the situation has changed, now look right on point.
I didn't see that coming.
Did not see that coming.
All right.
He made more good points than I want to mention.
I would say that if you're wondering, you know, what is the strength of 2023 Trump compared to 2016 and 2020 Trump?
If I based it only on this, he is at his highest peak of ability.
This was pretty sensational, actually.
And when you watch it, there's a thing you can't get out of your head.
And see if you all have the same thing in your head.
When Trump is talking, and he's really on point, you know, like he was at CPAC, you say to yourself, nobody could do that better.
Like, not even close.
The way he held that audience, oh my God!
Reagan was a superpower.
Obama, tons of charisma, great public speaker in his way.
But I watched practically his whole speech.
And I don't really watch political speeches.
But I was riveted the whole time.
I was like, well, that's interesting.
Oh, that's funny.
Oh, that's interesting.
Oh, that's funny.
He kept me glued to it.
And nobody, nobody is in his class.
He's absolutely operating alone.
And I'll tell you, the problem was that if you'd never heard of Trump, And you watch Vivek Ramaswamy give a talk, because I hadn't watched a lot of Trump the last few years.
So I'm watching Vivek, and I'm saying, oh my god, he's so smart.
And he's saying all the right policies, things I want to hear.
And I'm thinking, yeah, I want that.
And then you hear Trump talk, it's just a whole other level.
Now, that's not to say that Trump should be president.
I'm speaking just about performance.
Just performance.
His performance is unparalleled.
There's nobody close.
Nobody's in his class.
As soon as you say, but DeSantis gives a good speech, DeSantis would disappear if he stood next to Trump.
He would just disappear.
You would forget his name.
Like, I really, I guess I forgot how good he was.
But then he has more material to work from.
But the news, the major news seems to be completely trying to hide him.
So he's getting no press whatsoever.
And I wonder if he can, if he can perform, if his only press is like this on podcasts and stuff.
And maybe, maybe, maybe podcasts are the news now.
Now one thing that I bristled at is that he once again hit that the 2020 election he really won.
And for the longest time I've been saying that is just bad strategy.
Just bad strategy.
Forget about whether you won or not.
Right?
We're not going to settle that.
But it's just bad strategy to be looking backwards.
Like nobody wants to hear it at this point.
And then I thought of this.
The entire Democrat idea for January 6th, when they were trying to go after Trump, the idea of it was he always knew he was lying and he always knew the election was fair.
One way he can make that look ridiculous is by continuing to say it when it's no benefit to him whatsoever.
Because I think it's hurting him more than it's helping him.
But at the same time, I think to myself when I hear it, I think, you know what?
I feel like you wouldn't be on it this long unless you believed it.
I can't read his mind, right?
So I'm not saying I know what he's thinking.
I'm saying that my impression of it is that the longer he keeps on this what seems like a losing path, the more I think he must believe it.
And if he believes it, it wasn't an insurrection.
It was exactly what you thought it was, trying to stop one.
Meaning he actually thought the election was sketchy and he actually thought that if you just delayed it a little bit that it would come out.
You know, you'd be able to check or it'd be obvious somehow.
Now I think he was wrong about all those things.
So far I haven't seen any evidence that I consider credible.
That there was anything wrong with the election that would change the outcome?
There could be.
Remember I always say these things are not fully auditable.
They're not really designed to be fully auditable.
So you can't know.
But I don't have any information that was fixed either.
So there's a thing I do with all of my opinions, which I don't think you've noticed the pattern, so I'll point it out.
If something can't be solved, and there are lots of stuff like that, I default to the best system.
So the goal would be to get the right answer that everybody agrees with.
But sometimes you can't do that.
Take abortion, for example.
You're never going to get agreement.
So I default to a system that keeps everything running when we don't agree.
So with abortion, I say, don't listen to me.
The best system, since it's life and death and we'll never agree, the best system is that whatever women want by a majority is what the law is.
Now, it might be different by state.
Now, I'm not saying that men don't have a right to vote.
Men, you do whatever you want.
I'm just saying that the system that's most stable is where women decide on abortion.
The system that's most stable is that where men, largely, are the ones who decide on circumcision.
You could argue, as some have, and I think this is less true than it was, that a decision to go to war should be a male decision.
Because it's the men that are going to go die.
But you could argue that because they're mothers and women are in the military and blah, blah, blah.
So it's a little less clean.
But I prefer a system.
So when I looked at the election claims, I didn't know if the claims of bad election were true or not.
But I was pretty sure that we wouldn't be able to prove them in any time soon.
And in that situation, I default to the system, which is I'd rather Get this election over with and just get on with running the country.
So I tend to not quibble about small goal things.
Although this wasn't small, it was pretty big.
I don't quibble about the goal if getting that right means you break the system.
I like the system to stay strong, even when it's giving you wrong answers.
Because you don't want to break the whole system.
You want to fix it and tweak it.
All right.
So maybe Trump is doing that as a strategy to show that he really does believe the election was stolen, in which case that is, to me, that seems like a complete defense for January 6th.
Now I don't think there were any charges, but people are still going to be accusing him, and to me it's a complete defense.
And I don't know if he, I have no idea if he believes it.
I kind of think he does.
I kind of think he does.
That would be my guess, but I can't read his mind.
All right.
I made a list of all the racist things I support.
It turns out it's a pretty long list.
Would you like to hear all the racist things I support?
I support historically black colleges.
Pretty racist.
But the good kind.
The good kind.
I have historically supported affirmative action, although I lost two jobs because of it.
Which is not a speculation, that's what my boss told me.
In both cases.
Your career's over because you can't get promoted, you're a white man.
Directly.
They didn't say your career's over, they said you can't get promoted.
Which was the same thing.
So I agreed with affirmative action, although I think it needs to be reconsidered in 2023, because it might be causing more ill will than it's solving.
So I think it needs to be looked at.
But affirmative action is totally racist, and I supported that.
Black History Month?
Pretty racist.
I don't think we have a month for all the other groups, do we?
If everybody doesn't have a month, that's racist, and I support it.
I like Black History Month.
To me, it's like, OK, the black Americans have slavery.
They got some complaints.
Yeah, let's have a month.
Let's celebrate some successes and stuff like that.
So it's racist, but I like it.
I'm OK with it.
I supported Obama for president.
I can't remember if I actually voted.
I don't think I did.
But I supported him.
In no small part because he was black.
Because I thought it was just good for the country.
I think I was wrong.
I may have been wrong.
But because he was black, I supported him more.
That's totally racist.
That's completely racist.
But it's the good kind.
Here are some things I oppose that are racist on their own, but when you oppose racist things, you are a racist, because you can't avoid it.
For example, ESG is racist, because it's preference for different races, and I oppose it.
If you oppose something that's racist, and it were changed, it would be changed to a different racial benefit and cost, which is racist.
Anytime you do any policy, good or bad, that depends on race, racist.
So by opposing a racist ESG, that makes me definitely a racist.
I oppose CRT and DEI for the same reasons.
Those things at least imply or sort of nudge you toward racial preferences.
And I oppose that.
I oppose racial preferences in this context.
Which is racist.
That is racist to oppose racist things.
Because reversing them would just move the racial balance a different way.
Whichever way you move it is racist.
It's just sometimes you like it and sometimes you don't.
But very racist.
How about lowering college admission standards for diversity?
Well, that's racist.
And I oppose it.
So, because I oppose it and it's racist, if you were to reverse it, it would have a different racial outcome, which is racist, by definition.
I like strong border security.
I like strong border security, which Keeps out almost entirely non-white people.
Which is racist.
It's racist as an outcome.
But it's the good kind.
It's the good kind.
Because countries need borders.
It's not my fault that the people on the other side don't look exactly like me.
But if it was a bunch of Brits, I'd still want to close the border.
Do you think if Great Britain was our southern border, we're going to let them all come in and just do whatever they want?
Like, we like Great Britain.
But you still gotta go through the border checkpoint.
Like, that's not negotiable.
I'm sorry, that's not negotiable.
I think that some of the people who cross our border illegally are criminals.
I've been told that's racist.
I don't think they're all criminals, but I've been told if you say any of them are criminals, that that's bad.
And so there are quite a few racist things I do.
I didn't realize there were so many of them.
But there you go.
All right.
Here is a hoax.
Well, let's just call it a reading tip.
I did not think it would be necessary to give a reading tip to adults.
But here it is.
If you were to read this sentence, many Elbonians drink too much.
Is that racist?
Many Elbonians drink too much.
No.
Because you could say that about every group, couldn't you?
Right?
It's hard to think of any group that doesn't drink too much.
I mean, there might be a few.
Mormons, maybe.
That's about it.
But you wouldn't say that.
You'd just say, oh, if somebody said to me, many Elbonians drink too much, I would think they're trying to help.
Wouldn't you?
That sounds like good intentions.
Oh, you know, maybe we need to do something about this.
Many Elbonians drink too much.
So if you see many Elbonians drink too much, somebody might be trying to inform you.
So it might be odd.
I'd like you to know this.
But suppose you read this sentence.
Elbonians drink too much.
Just that.
Elbonians drink too much.
What do you think of that?
What's the interpretation?
Racist?
Right.
All Elbonians drink too much.
Let me, so here's the reading tip.
The way you should interpret Elbonians drink too much, if you just, some individual tweets it, you should interpret that as too many Elbonians drink too much.
And too many would be subjective, right?
It's because it's unhealthy.
You don't want, if one Elbonian drank too much, that'd be too much.
Because you'd like that Elbonian to be healthier.
So here's the two interpretations of Elbonians drink too much.
Either it's a shorthand for there are a lot of them, which would not be racist, or somebody is trying to trigger you.
They're intentionally trying to trigger you.
That's the other possibility.
Can you tell the difference?
But the interpretation that's never correct?
Well, it could be.
But the interpretation I wouldn't believe is that the person who said it really meant that all Elbonians drink too much.
So the most ridiculous interpretation is that the person who said it actually meant all Elbonians.
That's really never the case.
That's really never the case.
There's nobody who thinks that all members of a group do the same thing.
Nobody thinks that all black people play basketball.
Nobody thinks that all white people like cheese.
Just to pick two weird stereotypes.
Literally nobody.
You could go to a crowd of a thousand people and say, all right, question.
Do you think that all Irish like potatoes?
Nobody would say yes.
Like, not literally.
Nobody.
So if you read anything about, let's say, Black Americans do X, nobody believes that's all black people.
Nobody believes that.
So if you interpret it that way, that's kind of on you.
But it's possible somebody was trying to trigger you by fooling you into thinking that they meant all.
Like if somebody said you should move away from black people.
Do you think that would mean Everybody should move away from all black people.
Who would ever say that?
Does that sound like a real thing anybody would say and actually mean it literally?
No.
It's either somebody means in some occasions, sometimes, or some situations, or somebody's trying to trigger you because they know you'll interpret it as all.
That's the interpretation.
It either is a shorthand for, you know, a lot of them or too many or a lot, or it's just a way to trigger you.
But the wrong interpretation is that the person means everybody.
And on social media, they always go for the wrong interpretation.
It seems like.
Again, here I'm saying always, but I don't mean always, do I?
Right?
I even said the word always.
But you should interpret that as not always.
If you interpret it and be saying, it always goes that way on social media, an adult should take the always right out of their head and say, nobody means always.
Always is hyperbole.
So it's either hyperbole or just a short end.
There might be some exceptions, but it's so rare.
I've never seen one.
Never seen one.
I saw Elon Musk commenting, because somebody said that there was something that was distributed evenly by zip codes, some human characteristic or something, but evenly by zip codes.
And I guess Elon couldn't handle it.
It's like, the only thing that's distributed equally by zip codes is the zip code number itself.
That's it.
There's nothing within zip codes that are distributed evenly among zip codes.
And I thought, yeah, yeah, he's right.
That's funny.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's what I wanted to say for today.
If you haven't seen my big reveal from yesterday, the grand reframe, people are loving it, and it's going to change the world.
And I'm going to keep plugging on it until everybody sees this frame.
And then we'll see what happens.
So if I don't get assassinated or totally... Oh, if you didn't hear me on Sonny Johnson's radio show on Sirius, it went really well.
So I had a great chat with Sonny Johnson.
And we had a lot more in common than I was expecting.
I wasn't expecting that we would hit it off as well as we did.
But she's terrific.
The new frame is that it's not about race, it's about the elites are making us think about race so that we don't join together, or at least the low-income people don't join together to change things.
And vote the same way.
You don't want the races to vote the same way, because then the elites will lose everything.
So the better frame is that individuals should work on their self-success strategies, which are not taught in school, and anybody who learns success strategies will succeed.
Because success is actually a formula, and all the people who succeed use some version of that formula.
All the people who fail, some other version.
So I do have a book that's been cancelled, but someday you'll see it, sometime this year probably, called Reframe Your Brain.
And this reframe isn't in the book, because this is political, but the rest of them are reframes that would make you more successful.
Stuff like... Well, you've heard lots of examples.
But it's stuff that works for everybody.
It's not, you know, white specific or black specific.
It's just human specific.
And if you want to change your life...
Look for reframes.
If you don't think they're powerful, I'm going to ask my audience now, and those of you who don't know, watch the other answers.
Has anybody who's watched me reframe a topic found a genuine life benefit from it?
Not just thinking, but actually what they do is different.
The locals people, it's just a string of yeses.
The YouTube people haven't seen as many because I put a lot of them behind the paywall.
But you can see the yeses coming through also on YouTube.
Now keep in mind, even though this is a friendly audience, this is people who came to see me, what they're answering is that at some point I said a sentence that changed their life.
All of these yeses are confirming that at one point I said a sentence.
A sentence.
that changed their life.
The one you might know about is, alcohol is poison.
I don't think I'm the first person who ever said it, but I've been popularizing it for years.
And the people on Locals tell me all the time that they quit drinking because of one sentence.
And the other reframes, I call that a reframe, the other reframes in my book are that powerful.
So you'd have well over a hundred sentences that just take your mind to a different place and you'd know exactly what's happening.
It wouldn't be like hypnosis or something.
You'd know what's happening.
And it would fix a whole bunch of different problems from mental health to career to social life to everything.
So by far it's the most powerful book I've ever written.
By powerful, I mean nobody's going to be the same after reading it.
It would be almost impossible to finish that book with that many reframes and not come out of it a different person.
And I'm not sure how many self-help type books could make that claim, but this one, it'll change everybody.
I'm positive.
That's why I think it might be my biggest book, even cancelled.
Even cancelled, I'm going to... Maybe that helps in a weird way.
But even cancelled, I'm going to predict it's my biggest book.
That's what I think.
Yeah, it's insane how good it is.
And I don't say that about my other books, by the way.
I mean, I've told you which ones I like the best and stuff.
But I've never said this.
This is different.
This is not like a book.
This is like...
A software upgrade to your user interface, basically.
All right.
YouTube, I'm going to say bye.
Thanks for being here.
Have a great Sunday.
And, oh, I'll be on Chris Cuomo's show Monday.
That's live.
I'll be there for an hour.
And I believe it's 8 p.m.
Eastern Time.
5pm California.
Now, if you've noticed who I'm talking to, in terms of talking live, I'm trying to pick people, only talking to people that the audience will not believe is my best friend.
Because if friendly people talk to me, what's the point?
I want somebody who's not going to be afraid to go after it.
So because Chris Cuomo is associated with CNN, where he used to work, most of the audience will say, OK, there's somebody from the left.
They're not going to give him a break.
So we'll see how that goes.
So that's your teaser.
If you don't want to watch that, I don't know.
Could be good.
Could be good.
Yeah, I don't like it when you do the Frito stuff.
I don't dig that at all.
For some reason, why is it okay to do racial stuff about Italians?
Why is that okay?
That's not okay.
Yeah, don't do that.
I think you think that it's not that racially insensitive, but maybe you're not Italian.