Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1047 Scott Adams： That ＂Dark＂ Speech at Mt. Rushmore That Looked Unifying to You

00:00:00.820 Bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum 1.00

00:00:09.160 hey everybody. Come on in. Come on in. We've got things to talk about. Yeah. Is today the

00:00:18.380 4th of July? Oh yeah it is. Happy 4th of July. Do you know the last time I knew what day

00:00:27.140 of the week it was or what time of the month it was? It was a long time ago. Or as I said

00:00:34.040 to Christina just yesterday, can you remind me when we're supposed to get married? I have

00:00:41.680 this calendar problem. It's a lifelong problem. But anyway, I know why you're here. Yep. Yep.

00:00:49.420 It's for all the fun and the simultaneous sip. And all you need is a cup or mug or a

00:00:54.940 glass of tank or chalice or sign a canteen jug or flask a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your

00:01:00.340 favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine

00:01:07.500 of the day, the thing that makes everything including the coronavirus better. It's called

00:01:12.800 the simultaneous sip. It happens now. Go. Here's a question for you just to blow your

00:01:25.620 mind. You want your mind blown? Have you noticed that it seems like when there's one crisis in

00:01:35.120 the news and that's the focus of the news, all the other problems go away. You notice

00:01:40.680 that? Do you see a lot of people complaining about climate change? Not so much. And that's

00:01:49.100 a little lesson for you on how subjective your experience is. Because if we did not have a

00:01:55.920 coronavirus and we did not have whatever the protests are about, we would have the same amount

00:02:03.840 of fear about something else. Your fear would just be transported into a new vehicle. And

00:02:11.800 you know, we had this fresh new fear. Ah, coronavirus. We don't have to talk about climate change for a

00:02:17.240 while. But climate change will be back. It will be the most important thing in the world again

00:02:22.400 someday, as soon as we get past this. All right, let's check to see how our prediction and

00:02:30.560 suggestion records look. In the beginning of the coronavirus, who told you that maybe we should

00:02:38.440 move the restaurants outside into the streets for the summer? Probably me. And you see restaurants

00:02:45.420 all over the country moving into the streets and outside. Who told you that it would be great

00:02:51.360 to have outdoor movie theaters again? Probably I'm the first person who told you that. And now

00:02:57.880 Walmart is transforming 160 of its parking lots into summer outdoor movie theaters. Yay.

00:03:09.260 Who was, you know that I told you to close travel before a week before the president did from China. You

00:03:17.100 know that I told you the experts were lying to you about masks the first time I heard it. But here's

00:03:24.820 some more. Remember I told you that hydroxychloroquine, whether it worked or not, was a good risk management

00:03:32.800 decision. That still looks like it's right. I would say this latest study out of Detroit, the one that's

00:03:41.120 on the news that says it's that hydroxychloroquine works, I would say it's a little early for that.

00:03:47.460 If you're relying on that study to say, well, it's over now, it looks like it works. That's too early.

00:03:56.440 The odds of that study being debunked in the future, probably over 75%. So whether or not

00:04:05.540 hydroxychloroquine works or does not work, this latest study that says it works will almost certainly be

00:04:12.720 debunked. But that doesn't tell you whether it works or not. That's the world we're in. But in

00:04:19.900 terms of a risk management decision, I think it already looks like it was strong, because I doubt

00:04:26.960 it's hurting anybody. Here's a question that was asked, how many people died because the news

00:04:35.300 news treated hydroxychloroquine like poison because President Trump was promoting it? Think

00:04:42.640 about that. You might actually be able to do the math and figure out how many people were

00:04:46.940 killed by the illegitimate news business. Right? You could actually do the math. Now your

00:04:54.900 estimate would be subject to lots of uncertainty, but let me put a number on it. If it's true

00:05:01.800 this latest study is true that it cut the mortality rate in half, which would be a big claim, I'm

00:05:08.200 not sure that that will stand up over time. But let's say it did. This is the way the news

00:05:13.380 would report the story. If this were reversed, and President Trump is the only one who is saying

00:05:19.880 don't use it, and the mainstream media had been saying yes, use it, it's worth the risk. If this

00:05:25.800 had been reversed, the story would be this. If the president had gone the other way, we might have

00:05:32.140 saved 20,000 American lives. Right? Because, you know, over 100 and what, 120,000 people have died

00:05:41.980 in the United States from coronavirus. If you could cut that in half, now it wouldn't get to every

00:05:47.680 person, obviously. There's a supply problem and blah, blah, blah. So you wouldn't necessarily get to

00:05:53.460 use the medication on everybody. So it's not like you'd cut the entire death rate in half.

00:05:59.420 But let's say it would have made a difference. We're talking about 20,000 people that were killed

00:06:05.260 by the news. Think about it. Think about the fact that if the hydroxychloroquine study holds up,

00:06:14.220 and again, I would say that's probably not going to happen. But let's say that hydroxychloroquine

00:06:19.800 does turn out to be good and useful. That's all we'd be talking about. We wouldn't be talking about

00:06:29.140 anything except how the president had killed 20,000 people with bad advice. But he's probably

00:06:38.700 saved, you know, 20,000 people if they took it, and otherwise they might not have. Whereas the news may

00:06:45.600 have killed 20,000 people. But you won't see that in the news because the news, the news does not

00:06:51.860 indict the news. So it's a deep little situation. The only thing better would be a doctor. Because if

00:07:00.120 you're a doctor and you make a mistake, you could just bury it. Right? You know, it's like, well,

00:07:05.560 I'll just bury this mistake. But if you're the news, you can kill 20,000 people with intentional

00:07:11.060 fake news, and just don't report it. You just don't report it. It's like it didn't happen.

00:07:18.160 That's convenient. So what else did I get right at the very beginning? What was one of the first

00:07:25.680 things I told you? That's right, vitamin D. Do you remember that I told you at the very beginning,

00:07:32.480 make sure you get some sun and vitamin D because it's going to make a difference. That was a generic

00:07:36.960 statement based on the fact that vitamin D is just generally good for you in your immune system.

00:07:42.040 But did I not also, before you heard it anywhere, say, it looks to me that there's this weird

00:07:50.500 correlation, which I just noticed in the wild. I was just looking at the situation and said,

00:07:56.060 what is it about this group of people that are susceptible? And so I started googling,

00:08:01.060 because I had a hypothesis. And it was that. So I said to myself first, African American people seem 1.00

00:08:09.480 to be getting coronavirus worse. Google African American vitamin D. Yep, they get less of it.

00:08:16.860 For obvious reasons, their skin color makes it a little harder to absorb. So I think that's the 1.00

00:08:22.840 reason. I actually don't know if that's the reason, but it would be one of them.

00:08:26.820 And then I said, huh, what about the countries that are doing worse? And I googled it. And what

00:08:33.340 about people who have diabetes? And I googled it. And basically, the correlation really held.

00:08:38.440 So today, there's a report that there was a study that found out that vitamin D is very highly

00:08:45.040 correlated with the death rate of coronavirus. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that if you boosted

00:08:53.080 your vitamin D, you'd do better. But all common sense says yes. So again, the correlation looks

00:09:00.320 really strong, based on this one study, which could be wrong tomorrow, when there's another study. But

00:09:07.100 looks like I was right about that, too. So if you're keeping score, if you had done everything that the

00:09:15.020 idiot cartoonist told you to do about your health, you would be way ahead of what the news told you, 0.67

00:09:22.040 what the experts told you, and all of your doctors. That's just a fact. Sorry. You know, I can't,

00:09:30.540 I'm not going to tell you that I could do this. The next time there's a, the next time there's a

00:09:35.920 crisis, that doesn't mean that I'm going to be right every single time again. But it's starting to

00:09:42.460 look like a pattern, doesn't it? If you would trust in me on most things, you're, you know,

00:09:48.780 you wouldn't be right every time, of course, but you'd be way ahead. Does anybody know what the net

00:09:57.280 deaths are for this year? So one of the things I predicted, which I think I'm going to be wrong

00:10:04.180 about, but maybe not. I don't know. I want to see the numbers. It doesn't seem to you that the number

00:10:10.600 net deaths in the United States is being suppressed because you know that the protests are being

00:10:17.480 suppressed, right? So the news is no longer showing the news. The news is becoming a decision maker for

00:10:24.160 what you can see. That's, it's sort of turned into that. So we don't see the protests because

00:10:30.840 obviously they're trying to reduce the impact of the protests. So the news is not so much reporting it

00:10:38.040 as making the news. They're creating the situation by actively trying to suppress the protests just by

00:10:45.120 not covering them. But likewise, it seems to me that the number of net deaths for this part of the year

00:10:53.720 would be the most prominent thing you would see, right? Don't you think you should be seeing just

00:10:59.180 about every day on the news? If this were a normal year, here's how many deaths we would have on average,

00:11:05.120 this many per month. But because it was a coronavirus year, the number is 20,000 a week

00:11:11.520 higher than normal or something or whatever the number is. Ask yourself why you don't see that number

00:11:20.340 every day. Ask yourself why you don't see that number every day. It's because we were being

00:11:28.260 manipulated. So whoever makes these decisions, I don't think it's like one person who's deciding

00:11:34.640 the whole news cycle. But the people who decide what you see have decided that you shouldn't see

00:11:40.640 that. Yes, I may be using the wrong term. Somebody in the comments is saying, do excess deaths,

00:11:48.920 not net deaths. That's probably the better term. So excess deaths, meaning compared to the normal

00:11:55.740 baseline, how many people died that you would not have expected in a normal year. And then you assume

00:12:01.640 that most of them are coronavirus, but not necessarily. Yeah, so you do see the number of

00:12:07.220 deaths total for coronavirus, but you don't see excess deaths every day. Is that because it's high

00:12:16.480 or because it's low? Ask yourself this. Why don't you know the most important question in the country

00:12:24.520 or the world, really? What's the most important question in the world? Are excess deaths more or

00:12:32.500 less than there would be? Is there any excess deaths at all, I guess? You don't even know. You don't even

00:12:39.920 know. It's the most important number in the world. Does anybody know? Of course. It's a gatherable

00:12:46.420 number, obviously. What's up with that? Every time you see something like that that's now reported,

00:12:52.660 you have to ask yourself, is that a decision? Did somebody say, we don't want people to know this?

00:12:59.980 Maybe. Don't know. So Trump gave a speech last night. Probably you heard.

00:13:08.160 And the first thing I did was I tried to watch the speech without the benefit of any commentary.

00:13:14.500 So I like to watch it and say to myself, all right, what are the, what is this base going to think of

00:13:19.520 it? And then I try to put myself in the other head to say, okay, what is, what is the other team

00:13:25.540 going to think of this? Now, the other team is easy. You just say, oh, they're going to take stuff

00:13:30.840 out of context and say it's dark and evil and racist, right? Kind of easy. You didn't have to

00:13:36.300 actually hear the speech to know what the criticism would be. Am I right? You did not need to hear the

00:13:42.720 speech to write any of the criticisms that appear today. Look at the criticisms. You tell me that

00:13:49.960 you could not have written all of the criticisms before he gave the speech because they're sort of

00:13:54.840 generic. Two pundits have so far used the word dark. I wrote about this in Winn Bigley and I talked

00:14:03.920 about it in the 2016 cycle that there was a persuader who I speculated was Robert Cialdini

00:14:12.440 himself, the greatest persuader or expert who wrote the book Influence and Persuasion. So he would be

00:14:19.080 considered sort of the gold standard for influencers. And when everybody on the Democrat side in 2016

00:14:28.500 started using the word dark about Trump's speech at the convention, I said, there it is. That's the

00:14:34.200 mark. That word dark does not come from normal political people. This looks like an outside advisor

00:14:40.820 because that's a weapons-grade persuasion that you just don't see from the regular political advisors.

00:14:48.680 And it turns out that Cialdini refused to, he had a no comment when asked if it was him.

00:14:55.340 No, but nobody would no comment on that unless it was actually them. All right. Who in the world

00:15:01.560 would, if you said, did you give this specific piece of advice to the president? Who in the world

00:15:06.420 would say, no comment? You would only say that if he did. If he didn't, you'd say, no, that wasn't me.

00:15:14.240 Right. Because why would you, you know, unless you were just like the worst liar in the world or

00:15:18.720 something? All right. So we think that dark was probably given to the Democrats back in 2016.

00:15:28.360 I've only seen it twice this year. Looks like they're trotting it out to see if it'll,

00:15:32.760 it'll work, but I don't know. It doesn't seem to have any purchase yet. So what I picked out was

00:15:39.980 that Trump used the phrase bad, evil people to talk about the ones who are causing trouble and

00:15:45.980 taking down statues that were, you know, not even Confederate statues, et cetera. And I said,

00:15:52.860 ah, there it is. That's the quote that CNN will take in the context.

00:15:55.940 And sure enough, was it Mary, Mary Ann Williamson. So she was the first one to take it down in

00:16:08.060 context and say this. He is in her tweet, she said about the president's speech, he is positing

00:16:15.200 all those who don't agree with him as evil people who are enemies of America. Nothing like that

00:16:21.880 happened. If you watch the speech, the president's words were extremely clear. We're all, we're all

00:16:30.460 Americans unifying. We're all Americans. And there were these, some troublemakers were knocking down

00:16:37.580 statues and he's condemning them. The exact opposite of what Mary Ann Williams has says is that he's

00:16:45.100 positing that all those who don't agree with him are evil people. Not even close to anything like

00:16:52.040 that happened in the speech. Nothing close to that. Literally the direct opposite of this. But if

00:16:58.400 somebody didn't see the speech, what would they think? If you hadn't seen the speech, you'd think,

00:17:04.960 well, you know, maybe, maybe he said something like that. No, he said exactly the opposite of that.

00:17:11.200 Okay. Here's what, so here's the other thing I was looking for. I was looking for whether the

00:17:20.020 president hit a nerve. In other words, everything is a giant test of, how about this message? How

00:17:27.600 about this statement? How about the way I framed this? Everything in the campaign is a continuous

00:17:33.040 test to see if you got the right message that hit a nerve. And sometimes you can't tell if you hit a

00:17:39.740 nerve unless you see the reaction of the people you're trying to move. And let me, let me read

00:17:46.460 this reaction to you from Aaron Rupar, who is a notable anti-Trumper. So this was his comment about

00:17:56.020 Trump's speech. He said, Trump offers some remarkably overheated rhetoric. Interesting. All right. So the

00:18:04.180 first thing you should note is that Rupar is calling the president's rhetoric overheated.

00:18:10.160 All right. Just hold that thought. And he said, and he's quoting the president

00:18:16.740 saying, the president said, there is a new far left fascism that demands absolute allegiance.

00:18:25.360 This left-wing cultural revolution is designed to overthrow the American revolution.

00:18:29.860 All right. So Rupar is pointing out that this is overheated rhetoric. And of the things he wanted to

00:18:36.440 point out for a criticism, he wanted to point out that this was going too far to say that the left

00:18:43.960 was trying to demand absolute allegiance and that they were trying to overthrow the American revolution.

00:18:51.600 Here's what I think. I think that hit a nerve. I, you know, all of this is very subjective, but I'm going

00:19:01.600 to tell you that based on all of my lifetime of experience with persuasion, I think Aaron Rupar is

00:19:08.920 telling us directly, please don't do more of this. That's what it feels like. It feels like it's true

00:19:17.720 enough that Aaron Rupar is trying to brush it back and say, uh, no, this is bad. Uh, better not say

00:19:25.200 that anymore. It feels like he knows that a nerve has been hit. Now, of course, there's a big difference

00:19:32.840 between saying there are some troublemakers versus saying it's all the Democrats. They're all

00:19:37.860 troublemakers. There's a difference. But if the Democrats are sort of supporting the team that are the

00:19:43.880 small group of troublemakers, you can sell the argument pretty well. You can sell the argument

00:19:50.260 that they're all the same on the left, as long as the left won't condemn them and does support them

00:19:56.860 in other actions. Would you say that the left does support the small group of people who are taking down

00:20:04.640 statues and, and whatever, do they support them? Do they even support the looters? Yeah, they do.

00:20:12.440 They even support the looters by being very vocal about not wanting force being used, you know, to

00:20:20.040 being the anti-police in a sense. I think that Trump hit a nerve. Now, I'm going to tell you some

00:20:27.760 things that I don't think he did right in a moment. But on this one, because remember, everything's an

00:20:33.140 A-B test. You're not trying to hit winners. You're not trying to hit home runs every time. You're trying

00:20:38.220 to get that one that goes beep, beep, beep. This is the one. This is the one. And I think Aaron

00:20:45.220 Rupar, who reads the room well, in other words, he understands his, you know, his side of things and

00:20:51.660 is involved in politics. So I would say that his censor is probably pretty well tuned. You know,

00:21:00.400 that's not to say I agree with what he says. I'm just saying that he's sensitive to the situation.

00:21:05.320 He can read the room. And I think he's afraid of this attack, because I feel like he thinks it's

00:21:11.460 too close. So did you notice that something seemed to happen in the last 48 hours?

00:21:17.880 When the president basically, I forget his exact term for Black Lives Matter, but he basically said it

00:21:26.480 was a, you know, violent hate group or something. I think he said a hate group. You saw that I tweeted

00:21:32.300 that Black Lives Matter is a violent racist group. I got 10,000 retweets. I got 10,000 retweets

00:21:44.020 from people, not all of them, not all of them were anonymous, right? So Twitter isn't just

00:21:50.500 anonymous people. I got 10,000 retweets calling Black Lives Matter a violent racist group. Do you

00:21:57.720 know how many retweets I get on a normal retweet that does pretty well? A thousand? It was about

00:22:04.940 probably five to 10 times bigger response on something that you wouldn't expect people to

00:22:11.120 even stick their head above the foxhole on. I mean, I thought I would, you know, had a good

00:22:15.440 chance of getting canceled just for tweeting it, right? It was controversial enough that I thought I

00:22:21.660 might, you know, might be the end of my career the day I tweeted it. And 10,000 people retweeted that.

00:22:29.540 All right. So it is obvious now that this attack is hitting a nerve. I think that the left

00:22:37.120 understands they went too far. And I think they know that they overshot the mark. And I think they

00:22:43.960 know that their brand is now lawlessness and support for the complete destruction of the United

00:22:51.240 States. Now, is that overheated rhetoric for me to say that the left wants the complete destruction of

00:23:00.560 the United States? Well, actually not. That's the problem. The problem is that it's not overheated

00:23:08.380 rhetoric. Because Black Lives Matter, and their supporters and Antifa especially, they say directly

00:23:15.000 they want to dismantle the entire system. You can't tweak the patriarchy. It's not a tweak fix.

00:23:22.940 It's a dismantle. And they use the words. Now, if Black Lives Matter uses the words, 0.71

00:23:28.440 dismantle the system, and they have demonized white people quite directly as the racist and white

00:23:36.940 supremacist and slave owners, is it too far to say that they would seek retribution the moment that

00:23:42.820 they felt safe in doing it and hunting down people like me? Did you see what happened when I said in

00:23:49.520 public that Trump supporters might be hunted down and you could be dead in a year if Biden wins?

00:23:58.440 It wasn't because Biden and regular Democrats were going to hunt down anybody. I'm not suggesting

00:24:04.320 that an ordinary middle-of-the-road Democrat is going to look for revenge against Republicans or

00:24:11.380 anything. No, no. All they have to do is give cover for the groups that will, which they're doing quite

00:24:20.240 plainly right now. You don't have to wonder if most Democrats will give cover for the few Democrats

00:24:27.980 who are causing the trouble because we're watching it. It's happening right in front of you. You don't

00:24:31.760 have to wonder how that would play out. Of course they would. Would they do everything that they could

00:24:37.020 do to protect Trump voters in a Biden administration? No. No, there's no indication that they would lift a

00:24:46.180 finger to protect anybody who wasn't their own team. There's nothing that would indicate that's the

00:24:51.440 case. You've never heard one bit of rhetoric from the left that they would protect Trump voters. Have

00:24:58.400 you? Have you ever heard one person on the left say, if I'm president, or even just the way I think

00:25:04.760 things should be, is that people should leave Trump voters alone? Have you heard anybody say it?

00:25:12.880 Anybody? One time? A celebrity? Politician in the House? Senate? Candidate for president? Have you heard

00:25:23.440 anybody on the left, or even in the news, say, you know, people, we should not demonize regular Trump

00:25:30.940 voters? They just have a preference that's different from yours. Have you ever heard it? Not once. That is

00:25:38.480 approval. There's no way that could be interpreted anything but approval. So it's silent approval, but

00:25:45.900 approval nonetheless. So here's what I think happened. The moment that the president and people like me, you

00:25:54.040 know, less impact in my case, the moment that the president was willing to say in public, directly,

00:26:00.240 that Black Lives Matter is a hate organization, and we're not going to, we're going to put them in jail 1.00

00:26:06.880 for knocking down our statues. Ten-year prison sentence for knocking down, I guess, maybe a federal

00:26:12.220 statue. I think that the left realized they overplayed the hand. I don't think the left understood

00:26:20.360 that people on the right are legitimately afraid because they've said it directly. They want to dismantle

00:26:27.200 the country. If you want to dismantle the country, you are saying, I want to destroy everything. Now

00:26:34.020 normally, normally in a situation like this, I would say, no, no, no, they don't want to destroy

00:26:39.140 everything. They just want a different system, you know, transition to something that works better.

00:26:44.240 That's not what's happening. The, the loudest voices in the Black Lives Matter don't want to 0.97

00:26:49.980 transition anything. They just want to blow it up. There's no new plan. There's no plan.

00:26:58.580 Tell me if you've seen one. Has somebody drawn up the, the way the government will look without all

00:27:03.980 the systemic racism? Have you seen that blueprint? There is none. They only have a, they only have a

00:27:10.940 plan for destruction. That's explicit. It's not an interpretation. To prove me wrong, you just have

00:27:18.100 to show me their plan for what it should look like when they're done. If you can show me the plan of

00:27:23.380 what it looks like when they're done. Yeah, this is, this is the world we're trying to build. It

00:27:27.340 would look a little bit more like this. If that exists, well, then I'm certainly wrong, but it

00:27:33.600 doesn't, it doesn't exist. And it won't exist because they're not, they're not in the building

00:27:38.460 business. They're in the destruction business. So here's what I think happened. I think that the

00:27:46.200 Democrats realized they overplayed their hand and they're trying to walk it back without looking

00:27:52.220 like they're walking it back. So the more that any of you are willing to say that Black Lives 0.98

00:27:57.840 Matter is a violent, racist organization with lots of people who have good intentions. So when I talk

00:28:05.080 about Black Lives Matter, it's a very diverse group, which is the good news, right? The one good news 1.00

00:28:12.920 about anything is that if you can get any diversity to agree on anything, you know, maybe that's good

00:28:19.940 unless you're leading a revolution that you don't understand, which would be bad. So lots of people

00:28:25.160 within the movement are just well-meaning people who got caught up in something they didn't quite know

00:28:30.300 what they were getting into. How many people who are supporting and marching with Black Lives Matter

00:28:35.420 understand that their entire way of life in the United States would surely be destroyed

00:28:41.940 if Black Lives Matter got what it wanted? How many of the protesters understand that?

00:28:48.360 Maybe none.

00:28:49.940 Now, I've said it before. This is the one, there's one group in the country, maybe the world, that you can

00:28:57.320 criticize and nobody can fault you for it. Like you can't make fun of people for their appearance,

00:29:03.200 their ethnicity, their gender, and I don't suggest that you do. You know, I'm happy that those things are

00:29:10.400 largely off the table. But there's one group that we can all mock mercilessly, and I hope you'll join

00:29:17.280 me in it. It's young people. And the reason you can mock young people is because either you are one,

00:29:24.980 I mean, there are only two conditions if you're alive. You either are a young person,

00:29:29.680 or you used to be one. So you do have a right to mock young people, because it's you. You used to be

00:29:38.240 one. You know how smart you were when you were 20. And you know how smart you were when you're 40,

00:29:44.100 if you're 40 or over. And it's not very close. It might, it might feel like it's, it should be close

00:29:52.280 when you're 20. When you're 20, you're pretty sure you've got the context now. You're like,

00:29:58.140 all right, I'm as smart as I'll ever be IQ wise, which might actually be true. But you don't know

00:30:03.980 very much about context and framing and how much you've been manipulated and how you've been

00:30:09.500 brainwashed your entire life. And it might take you another 10 years to figure it out.

00:30:14.140 So we have a revolution that's being led by, and I say this with love,

00:30:18.960 our dumbest citizens on average. Dumbest meaning young. All right, there's no ethnicity in what I'm

00:30:25.800 saying. I'm only talking about young is always less informed than more experienced. It's just a

00:30:33.500 fact of life. So here we have a group of people who are leading this thing. They went way too far.

00:30:40.900 They have convinced the people on the right that they mean it. Let me ask you this. Do you think

00:30:48.880 there are any people on the right who are preparing to leave the country because they think it's all

00:30:53.840 going to, that society itself will be ripped apart? Yes, there are people on the right who are smart

00:31:02.060 and they're not crazy people whatsoever who are planning to leave the country because they think

00:31:08.660 that the left will actually become a violent mob that will destroy whatever is here. And there's

00:31:14.720 nothing that can stop it. Now, I don't think that's the case. I'm not in that camp. But the left has

00:31:21.000 gone so far that people are considering moving out of the country. And I'm not talking about the people

00:31:26.600 who said, if Donald Trump is elected, I'll move to Canada. None of that was serious. I'm talking about

00:31:32.560 people who are actually making plans to get theirself the fuck out of this country because the Black Lives 1.00

00:31:38.460 Matter people and the protesters and Antifa appear to be unstoppable if nobody's willing to stop them.

00:31:45.640 And there doesn't seem to be a willingness to stop them. Now, I don't agree with that. I think things

00:31:50.880 will far more likely just revert to something close to normal in a few months. In my opinion,

00:31:57.560 the only reason any of this is happening is a weird coincidence. And the weird coincidence is that

00:32:04.300 coronavirus made it necessary to wear masks at the same time that people wanted to protest.

00:32:11.280 And wouldn't it be convenient if you could wear a mask? All right. So if we did not have this weird

00:32:17.020 mask coincidence, which is the weirdest coincidence, you have to wear a mask. And by the way,

00:32:23.480 you might be protesting. Wouldn't that be convenient? So it is by its nature something that would not be a

00:32:31.720 long-term problem if we can contain it, which I think we will, which is why the news is now actively

00:32:37.180 managing the protests to decrease them. Let me ask you this. If the people who ran the mainstream news,

00:32:43.920 which of course is corrupt and nothing like news anymore, it's just fake news. It's just straight

00:32:49.240 up propaganda. If the propagandists who do what looks like news, if they thought that the showing the

00:32:57.060 protests were good for their side, wouldn't you see a lot more of it? Have you noticed that they

00:33:04.520 stopped coverage of the protests? And doesn't your common sense say, if these protests were bad for

00:33:12.660 Trump, I think we'd see a lot more of them, just a lot more footage and stuff. So you're definitely

00:33:20.080 being manipulated by the news. All right. If you didn't know that, here's a really good mind spinner.

00:33:30.640 So Ghislaine Maxwell, the co-conspirator with Epstein, as you know, got picked up. And Alan Dershowitz wrote

00:33:41.360 a fascinating article about that situation. Now, of course, he used the situation to defend himself

00:33:48.320 against allegations that he was with some young woman. And if you've ever seen one of the top

00:33:56.540 lawyers of all time defend himself, it's really worth looking at. It's worth looking at just to

00:34:04.960 see how well he makes his argument. It's just every time I read Dershowitz, I just go, oh, wow,

00:34:10.500 that was really well done. Even if you don't like his point of view, you end up going, okay,

00:34:15.980 that's really skillful. And he did it again. So he writes this article, in which he is noting that

00:34:22.720 a lot of the people who have testified, the young women who have these horrific stories of things

00:34:28.640 that happened with Epstein and on the island, Dershowitz very persuasively points out that

00:34:35.980 they have been, what would you say, discovered to be liars at the highest level. In other words,

00:34:44.400 we know they made up stories about other people being on the island, because you can check the

00:34:50.580 record and you can know for sure that they weren't there when these witnesses were claiming it was

00:34:56.240 all happening. So Dershowitz's explanation of the witnesses being completely unreliable. I mean,

00:35:04.880 as unreliable as anything could be. Let me tell you how unreliable it would be. Imagine if you had a

00:35:10.940 person who claimed he saw a murder on his front lawn. Well, the first time it happened, you'd say,

00:35:19.640 well, we don't see any signs of a murder, but we're going to treat this seriously because you

00:35:23.720 reported a murder. And then in the end, they say, all right, it looks like nobody got murdered on your

00:35:28.580 lawn. And then you call the police the next week and you say, another person got murdered on my lawn.

00:35:33.520 Well, maybe you take it seriously. You say, that sounds a little familiar, but we'll check it out.

00:35:41.520 And again, nobody got murdered on the lawn. Playback the video. It's obvious there was nothing

00:35:47.420 happening on the lawn. The third time you call and say somebody just got murdered on my front lawn,

00:35:53.900 what do the police say? They say, well, maybe work it out yourself, right? So if you've been caught in

00:36:01.160 an exact lie of the type that is on the table, that is the lowest level of credibility you can

00:36:08.900 have. You're not just somebody who in some general way is undependable. You're someone who is

00:36:14.540 specifically undependable on this exact question. And it's been proven. That's the lowest level of

00:36:22.360 credibility you could actually have. You can't get lower. You lie on this exact question. And we know

00:36:28.880 it. It's proven. So Dershowitz makes the case that the witnesses that sound, when you see them

00:36:35.080 at a context, and by the way, I watched the Epstein movie on Netflix, which threw Dershowitz under the

00:36:43.580 bus pretty hard with allegations against him in that film. And Dershowitz tells the story of giving them

00:36:52.120 all of the background information that was exculpatory. Some of the same stuff he mentions in the

00:36:58.000 article. He gave it to Netflix, a complete defense that, in my opinion, is actually really strong.

00:37:05.020 I mean, really strong. I wasn't there. I don't know what happened. I'll never know what happened.

00:37:10.440 But I'm just looking at the defense based on real facts that could be checked. Facts you could check

00:37:16.940 yourself. He gave to Netflix, and they didn't put it in the film. They didn't put it in the film.

00:37:24.000 Think about that. They threw Alan Dershowitz under the bus, accused him of being a sex criminal.

00:37:32.940 And the accusers have a record, according to Dershowitz, of being liars on this exact thing,

00:37:40.660 accusing other people that we know for sure weren't there. How do you not include that?

00:37:46.240 How do you not include that? Really? What kind of world are you living in where the exculpatory

00:37:53.720 information they just ignore, like it wasn't there? So the level of evil that requires is just

00:38:00.980 mind-boggling. But anyway, I don't think that Ghislaine Maxwell is innocent by any means. But when you

00:38:08.960 see Dershowitz set it up, say, well, basically his argument is this, that he's not saying anything

00:38:15.500 about Maxwell because he doesn't know. So he's saying, I don't know anything that she did. I

00:38:20.080 didn't observe anything wrong. But here's the context. All of the accusers have been proven liars

00:38:26.260 on these very accusations. I mean, this type of accusation, not the specific ones against her.

00:38:33.380 That's a really strong argument. I can't even imagine a jury that could convict on that unless

00:38:44.480 video appears or something later. All right. So don't be surprised. Don't be surprised if Ghislaine

00:38:52.760 Maxwell does not get convicted of anything. And the other possibility is apparently there was some

00:38:58.540 kind of a plea deal when Epstein originally went to jail, I don't know, one of those times.

00:39:04.200 There's some kind of an existing plea deal that might give Maxwell immunity. But it's sort of

00:39:10.180 untested. She might have immunity. There might be, she might not go to jail at all. Think about that.

00:39:19.440 All right. Here's the worst idea I've ever heard in my entire life. They're going to play the black 1.00

00:39:24.480 national anthem before the NFL games and then do the regular national anthem prior. Now, of course,

00:39:33.580 one understands why they're doing it. They're trying to do the best they can to satisfy not only their

00:39:39.640 players, but their fans. And it's just a tough situation. All right. So I feel bad for the NFL

00:39:45.540 because there's just no way to win. They just don't have a winning play. But I think they found the worst

00:39:55.560 solution. Because how do you feel if you are, let's say, a football watcher and you see an alternate

00:40:05.800 national anthem? The alternate national anthem. Now, they're referring to it as a black national anthem,

00:40:13.940 but let's take the black out. You just heard there's an alternative national anthem for a subset

00:40:21.080 of America. How does that make you feel? Does it make you feel like an American now that there's two

00:40:28.560 national anthems? It doesn't matter if it's a black national anthem. It could be the woman national 0.92

00:40:32.880 anthem. It could be the LGBTQ national anthem. It doesn't matter what subset of Americans we're talking

00:40:39.000 about. This might be one of the worst ideas I've ever seen from a business.

00:40:46.900 I feel like the NFL is going to have the lowest ratings they'll ever have, unless people are so

00:40:55.400 starved for entertainment that they watch anyway. I guess it's a wild card because people are starved

00:41:01.240 for entertainment. So maybe it'll be the highest ratings they've ever had. But they might, people

00:41:06.180 might tune in, you know, 10 minutes after the game starts to not watch it. Now, what's my personal

00:41:12.960 feeling about it is, I don't get worked up about, you know, symbols. I don't care about flags and flag

00:41:20.780 burnings. I don't care about national anthems. I don't care about kneeling. And I don't care about

00:41:25.200 statues too much. Just generally speaking, if you're talking about symbolism, I don't know, just work it out,

00:41:33.160 work it out among yourselves. If there are Americans who care deeply about these symbols,

00:41:39.380 and they want to mix it up with, you know, verbally mix it up with other people who have a different opinion,

00:41:45.400 I just, I'm just going to watch the show. Wherever it comes out, statues, yes, statues, no. I'm going to be

00:41:52.060 fine with it either way. I just can't get invested in something so ridiculous. So personally, I'm not invested

00:41:58.840 in any of it. I don't think football is important. I don't think it should be played. By the way, I

00:42:05.060 think football should be banned, you know, because they had injuries, especially for children. Maybe

00:42:11.920 for adults, you let them take the chance, but certainly I would ban football for children. That's

00:42:16.460 another, another story. So I think the NFL is shooting themselves in the foot with this, but we'll see.

00:42:22.480 It could turn out to be brilliant. We'll see. Here's something that's a worrisome trend.

00:42:32.040 Self-defense is starting to look illegal now. Did you know that? Didn't you have a pretty good idea

00:42:38.400 in your head what self-defense looked like, and you thought you knew what it was? It's starting to

00:42:44.020 get murky, and I'm worried that the realm of what we would call self-defense is shrinking so that the

00:42:52.740 angry mobs can get at you a little bit better. Let me give you an example. So apparently, I don't

00:42:59.600 have an update on this, but the last I knew, the McCloskeys, the couple who were the gun-wielding

00:43:05.620 couple in their big house that they protected against the crowd, apparently they're still being

00:43:10.800 considered for charges. Are you kidding me? They are still being considered for maybe being charged

00:43:17.340 with a crime for simply having guns to at least have some defense against this crowd. Now, I don't

00:43:25.560 know if it was because the wife pointed her gun. Does that make a difference? I'm not a lawyer, and maybe

00:43:31.440 it varies by state, but where exactly was the crime? That was as self-defense-y as anything I've ever seen in

00:43:39.860 my life. They were lawyers, for God's sakes. They knew what a crime is. They're lawyers. They know what

00:43:45.500 a crime is. They weren't trying to commit a crime, that's for sure. And then I heard another one today

00:43:52.940 about, there's a question about what police should do, or really what anybody should do. Let's say the

00:43:58.640 mob surrounds your car. If the mob surrounds your car, and they start breaking the windows, and there's

00:44:04.820 even somebody with a gun, and you know they shot somebody in a car, so it's like the worst, scariest

00:44:09.740 situation. But the mob is all around your car. What can you do in self-defense? Can you drive forward

00:44:17.580 at the risk of hitting people when you know you would hit people? Can you drive slowly? Can you give

00:44:23.340 them like warnings of like, you know, sharp little moves forward to get them out of the way, but if he hits

00:44:28.120 somebody, you're still liable, and you go to jail, even the question of your car surrounded by people,

00:44:36.140 you're not allowed to just drive through them, even if they're attacking your car.

00:44:41.520 And the fact that that's even a question, are you kidding me? That's a question? Well, let me say,

00:44:49.740 if somebody surrounds my car, I'm going to drive forward. If there's somebody in front of my car,

00:44:56.800 they will be killed or injured, but I'm going to do it. I'm not going to sit there with a crowd

00:45:04.900 that's beating on my car and threatening me. I'm going to drive forward, and I'm going to take out

00:45:10.020 anybody who's in front of me, and I'm not going to even think twice about it. I'm not even going to

00:45:14.620 feel guilty about it. I'm going to look in my rearview mirror and see brains spilled on the road

00:45:20.980 behind me. I'm not going to have a nightmare about that. I'm not even going to have PTSD about that.

00:45:26.800 All right, that's just me. But let me say it again. If you put me on a jury in this country,

00:45:35.120 I am not going to convict anybody for what looks like self-defense. Moreover, if it's a gray area,

00:45:43.120 they're not going to be convicted by me. Put me on a jury if it even looks a little bit self-defency

00:45:50.540 in the context of these big crowds. I'm not talking about a normal crime. All right, a normal crime,

00:45:56.300 you have to look at each one individually. But in the context of these protests, if somebody does

00:46:01.740 something that's even arguably a little bit self-defency, they're good with me. Good with me,

00:46:10.080 because here's what I don't expect of my fellow citizens. I don't expect you to be speed lawyers

00:46:16.960 in an emergency. You're probably not a lawyer. And if you were, you don't have much time to think.

00:46:24.120 I'm not going to ask you to be a legal scholar while a crowd is ascending on you. If the crowd

00:46:30.780 ascends on you, this is Scott's rule. Let me put it out there. Are you ready? This is Scott's law.

00:46:37.960 I'm just making this up now. Scott's law says that if the crowd comes after you, there's nothing you

00:46:43.200 can't do to defend yourself. Got it? There's nothing you can't do to defend yourself if a

00:46:50.320 crowd threatens you. That's Scott's law. Put me on the jury. Let's say the crowd comes in and they're

00:46:57.180 chanting things and they surround you. And you pull out a machine gun and you kill 27 people.

00:47:03.780 self-defense, self-defense. That's just me. You can do anything you want. It's a free country so far,

00:47:13.340 a little less free than it used to be. But if it's me, you could take out a machine gun and you could

00:47:18.480 take care of the entire crowd that's threatening you. And you could even finish off the people who

00:47:23.560 are on the ground suffering. And I would still, still say, looks like self-defense to me.

00:47:30.460 I don't know, because you don't know if those people on the ground were going to get up.

00:47:35.700 Right? I mean, you're not some expert on military or defense. So if a civilian gets surrounded,

00:47:43.480 that's just me. I don't recommend that you do that because taking self-defense recommendations

00:47:49.940 for me would be a certain way to get you killed. I'm just telling you my attitude. So I think we've

00:47:55.720 reached the point where the slippery slope has met the wall. Slippery slope, meat wall.

00:48:04.260 We are all able to say now that Black Lives Matter is a violent, racist organization. Now, by the way, 1.00

00:48:11.660 that's not an opinion. That's actually Black Lives Matter's self-branding. You saw Hawk Newsom,

00:48:17.960 head of the Black Lives, he's a leader in Black Lives Matter in New York, which is obviously an

00:48:23.320 important, important branch of Black Lives Matter. And he said on television, I think he said it more

00:48:28.180 than once recently, that they do not eschew violence. That, you know, they'll be peaceful if

00:48:37.400 they can get what they want. But if they can't get it through peace, violence is on the table.

00:48:42.300 And he said it, he said it directly. I'm not interpreting, I'm not like reading between the

00:48:47.460 lines. He said it directly. And guess what? I agree with him. The reason I know I'm not

00:48:54.940 misinterpreting it is because it's a perfectly reasonable statement, which is, and here's the

00:49:00.320 second part, as Hawk points out, that if you look at the history of this country, almost nothing ever

00:49:07.100 changes without violence. And it's a really smart thing to say, because it's true. This is one of those

00:49:15.000 countries, and maybe it's just true everywhere, that until there's at least the threat of violence,

00:49:20.600 things don't really change, you know, because you don't have to, you can say, well, deal with that

00:49:25.140 tomorrow, and then don't. So he's not wrong, that if they need, you know, if they feel that they're

00:49:32.680 willing to do whatever it takes to get these changes, whatever they might be, that violence is

00:49:37.280 on the table. So if your organization leader says violence is on the table, you are a violent

00:49:43.120 organization. And you can see, you know, individual members who are being violent.

00:49:49.400 Secondly, is it racist? Of course it is. Of course it is. It's totally racist. Let me make an analogy

00:49:55.500 for you. Is Black Lives Matter, you know, equally concerned with other lives? Obviously not. The whole 0.97

00:50:06.580 point of Black Lives Matter is that it's a preference. You know, they're not looking for equality, they're 1.00

00:50:12.360 looking for, at least the way the slogan is presented. I'm not mind reading anybody's individual

00:50:18.080 thoughts. I'm saying that the way it's presented is that their problems are special, because they

00:50:26.600 came from a certain, you know, a certain historical path. I would argue that saying that Black people's 0.95

00:50:32.980 problems are special, whereas let's say some Hispanic American, Filipino American who was born into

00:50:40.240 poverty, I guess their problems aren't special. They don't get any help, because they don't have the

00:50:46.300 right kind of skin. It's just purely racist. It's violent and it's racist. Now again, I think by and

00:50:53.860 large, most of the members, most of the protesters have something like good intentions, but they have

00:50:59.520 joined on to a violent racist organization without realizing it. Speaking of that, let's talk about the

00:51:05.120 president's speech, which is being called racist and divisive. Those of you who watched the speech

00:51:11.800 last night, give me your opinions. We'll take, there's a little time lag in the comments, but your

00:51:17.660 opinion, was the president's speech unifying or was it racist and divisive? Go. What is your

00:51:27.220 opinions? And then I'll tell you about it. By the way, I do plan to have surgery someday if the

00:51:33.900 coronavirus doesn't keep delaying it. I'll get my sinuses fixed. All right, so I'm looking at your

00:51:42.520 comments coming in. I guess it's going to take a little while for them to go in. Here's what I

00:51:47.500 think. If the president wanted to be unifying, it wouldn't have sounded anything like that.

00:51:54.400 So I don't think it was a unifying speech or even close to anything like that.

00:51:59.440 Did anybody think that was unifying? So he decided not to tell jokes and he played it seriously.

00:52:08.400 He talked about America and he talked about, you know, we're all Americans, et cetera. So there

00:52:15.080 were definitely things he said that you could identify as attempts at unification. But here's

00:52:22.880 the thing. If the president, so I'm looking, okay, comments are coming in now. Good, good. Somebody

00:52:32.280 says dark. Somebody says best, truth. Somebody said low energy. I will agree with low energy. It

00:52:38.600 looked low energy to the point where he looked really tired, actually. Some people saying it's

00:52:45.560 very unifying, patriotic. Somebody said too mild, which is not divisive enough, I guess.

00:52:52.220 Uplifting and unifying, unifying, unifying, unifying. All right, here's what you all got wrong,

00:52:58.380 unfortunately. All of those who, all of those of you who are saying that it was unifying,

00:53:04.800 unifying, I hate to break it to you. I gotta, I hate to break it to you. That might be the least

00:53:14.540 unifying speech I've ever seen in my whole fucking life. Let me tell you why. If this isn't obvious

00:53:20.580 to you, you really haven't been listening to the, the protesters. You know, if, if you have this many

00:53:27.500 protests, you, if this many people are protesting, at the very least, you ought to listen to them.

00:53:33.720 You don't have to agree. You don't have to agree. But I'm starting to think you haven't even listened

00:53:41.400 to them. Because here's, here's why this was the least unifying speech of all time. That's saying

00:53:50.340 too much. It wasn't unifying. Here's why. The president talked about all of us appreciating our

00:53:58.040 great history and our, and our shared heritage. How does that sound to you? Let's say, let's say,

00:54:05.980 for example, you're watching this Periscope. There is a statistical chance that you might be

00:54:11.180 white and a Trump supporter. How does it sound to your ear when you hear you'd like to, everybody to

00:54:17.720 share and, and, and honor our, our heroes and our shared cultural, you know, history. How's it,

00:54:26.900 how's it feel? Unifying, right? You're like, yeah, our shared history. We're Americans. Let's revel in

00:54:35.080 our shared history. Okay. Here's what's wrong with that.

00:54:39.040 A lot of the history was people being enslaved. How in the world are black Americans supposed to 0.99

00:54:49.540 look at the history of the United States and say, yeah, that, that looks good. Well, let me buy into

00:54:55.400 that shared heritage where, where I, you know, my great, great, great, whatever was a slave. How in

00:55:02.360 the world does that, is that unifying in, in the context of protests with Black Lives Matter, you

00:55:10.480 know, the statues coming down, the, the legacy of slavery, that the room is about slavery. Slavery is

00:55:18.560 like the biggest topic in the news right now. It's on the top of minds. And the president said, let's

00:55:24.040 celebrate our shared history. Well, the shared history is some people doing well and some people

00:55:29.000 slaves. How in the world are the slaves, you know, the people who descended from slaves or have any 0.99

00:55:35.520 connection to it? How in the world are they supposed to hear that speech and hear words like heritage and

00:55:41.520 culture and saying, yeah, let's, let's honor some of that stuff where my people were slaves or let's

00:55:48.720 honor that part where the native Americans were slaughtered to get their land. How in the world is that

00:55:56.060 unifying? I would say that that speech was an attempt to be not unifying, in my opinion, in my opinion, in my

00:56:02.960 opinion, it was written with the intention of being a, you know, more for the base. Now, did the base like it? Yeah,

00:56:10.740 they did. So I, I, I was wondering how the base was responding. And they're responding very well, because the

00:56:19.720 base has a gigantic blind spot. You know, you do not every single person, obviously, but the base has a

00:56:26.600 gigantic blind spot, which is history is not so kind to a lot of people who live in this country and

00:56:36.400 should be, you know, should feel good about it just the way you feel good about it if you do. So I would say

00:56:45.040 that, uh, a unifying speech would have directly referenced that and would have directly acknowledged

00:56:54.160 that. And, and some, something would have looked more like, um, you know, let's, let's appreciate

00:57:02.380 more, blah, blah, blah. Now, here's what, here's what I like that he did. He did mention the heroes of our

00:57:08.640 history. And he quite pointedly mixed in a lot of African-American heroes with the other heroes.

00:57:15.700 But did that make everybody happy? No, because there was no LGBTQ in that list. I don't even know

00:57:22.560 if there was a woman in the list. Was there? There might've been one. Was there maybe one woman in the 0.98

00:57:28.700 list of American heroes? So you can't really satisfy people with, Hey, we'll throw in some statues for

00:57:36.720 you guys too, you know, to show that everybody's, everybody's equal. We'll give you some statues

00:57:41.380 because the group that didn't get any statues is going to say, um, ah, it's great that white people

00:57:47.900 and black people have statues, but how about me? So there's no winning. So did the president take the

00:57:57.320 most politically advantageous approach, which is pushing back on the statue people, which is base

00:58:03.700 wanted using words like culture and heritage, which sound racist to half the country, but to

00:58:10.520 his base just sounds like common sense. Um, then you generally, genuinely don't hear it. I think it

00:58:18.120 is, it is legitimately true that people on the right just don't hear that. They don't hear it as racist,

00:58:25.360 but it's because you haven't lived anybody else's life. Um, everybody else has the same problem.

00:58:31.860 It's not, it's not a problem on the right. It's a problem that nobody really knows what anybody

00:58:35.080 else is feeling or thinking. All right. So my opinion is that the speech might've been good for

00:58:42.420 his base, which was important. So maybe it was politically correct in terms of unifying. I would

00:58:48.880 say it used the words that, you know, won't unify. So if you intentionally put into a written speech

00:58:56.380 words that are guaranteed to not unify, you can't really say it was an attempt. It wasn't really

00:59:02.180 an attempt to unify. Oh, so somebody is saying that there were some women in his list, several of

00:59:07.620 them. Ella Fitzgerald, Rosa Parks, Harriet Tubman. Thank you. Clara Barton. Oh, thank you. Okay.

00:59:15.660 So when I was hearing the list, um, I was not taking note of them. Dolly Madison, was she

00:59:23.720 on the list? All right. Somebody says statues are idols used for mind control. I agree with

00:59:32.280 that. Statues are a form of mind control, just as the history of the country is just as the

00:59:38.660 pledge of allegiance, just as the flag is. So all of our symbols are, um, they have utility.

00:59:45.660 We use symbols because they do something. They have a function. It's a tool. It programs people

00:59:52.080 to think a certain way. That's why we do it. Uh, so the president suggested building a special

00:59:58.060 garden in which statues would be, but he didn't say if we would be moving statues and he didn't

01:00:04.860 say, are we building some extra statues to those other people you mentioned? So there's

01:00:09.460 some questions to be answered, but that wasn't a bad idea. I think on the right, people were

01:00:15.380 pretty happy with the idea of putting them in a special place where you've got better

01:00:19.100 context. Yeah. So I would say the president, uh, did a good job from the perspective of his

01:00:26.220 base. He did nothing to, uh, to make the left move toward him, but maybe that doesn't matter

01:00:32.660 because maybe you can't, maybe you can't move the other side toward you. So maybe it doesn't

01:00:36.900 matter. But here's the, here's the takeaway. I believe the left is afraid of the president's

01:00:43.260 framing of them as dangerous, um, basically dangerous racist hate groups. So that does seem

01:00:51.140 to be the most productive attack, the one they worry about the most. And there's plenty of evidence

01:00:57.060 to make that case. So it's very dangerous. All right. Um, everything is a form of mind

01:01:04.540 control. Somebody says with a smiley face, that's true. Everything does impact the way

01:01:10.380 you think your environment does that. All right. Um, professors are indoctrinating kids with

01:01:22.060 mind control. Yeah, I think so. I think that's a fair thing to say. Um, did you see, I tweeted

01:01:30.600 this around, uh, that there, I mentioned this, there actually is a national effort to build

01:01:35.820 a national, uh, bike paths around the country so that you could bicycle from one side of the

01:01:41.540 country to the other, and it would be a touristy thing to do. So that's actually underway. I tweeted

01:01:47.140 that the other day. Amazing. All right. Somebody says dumbest idea I've ever heard. I don't know

01:01:55.100 if you're talking about the garden full of statues or not. All right. That's all I got. I will talk

01:02:01.240 to you tomorrow. Have a great 4th of July.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - July 04, 2020

Episode 1047 Scott Adams： That ＂Dark＂ Speech at Mt. Rushmore That Looked Unifying to You

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript