Episode 1100 Scott Adams： Cognitive Tests Biden Would Fail, How I Plan to Take Biden Out of the Race, TDS Cures, Brennan, and More
Episode Stats
Length
1 hour and 18 minutes
Words per Minute
150.45929
Summary
On today's episode of Coffee with Scott Adams, host Scott Adams talks about Joe Biden's speech at the Democratic National Convention, Van Jones' take on the Joe Biden speech, and why he thinks it was the best speech Joe Biden has ever given.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Hey everybody, come on in, come on in, gather around.
00:00:14.180
It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams, best part of the day, every single time.
00:00:21.940
And what do you need to have the best coffee with Scott Adams?
00:00:26.680
Well, you've got to bring your good attitude, of course.
00:00:39.600
And you probably know because you're also quite smart.
00:00:49.380
And you know that all you need is a cup or mug or a glass or a tank or a chalice or a stein,
00:00:54.520
a canteen, a joker, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
00:01:01.800
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day,
00:01:05.980
the thing that makes everything better except Joe Biden's broken brain.
00:01:33.380
You may have seen a clip in which Van Jones over on CNN was saying of Biden's acceptance
00:01:41.120
speech that, I'm paraphrasing, but he said that they were prepared to praise it even if
00:01:48.640
it wasn't that good, and everybody said, hey, hey, see, see, you're admitting that you're
00:02:01.040
Now, first of all, Van Jones is not one of CNN's news professionals.
00:02:11.720
But I'll tell you what I like about Van Jones, and it's one of the things I like about Trump.
00:02:18.640
When Trump is BSing you, you always sort of know it, which makes it okay.
00:02:26.160
If he's always BSing everybody all the time, he's always in, you know, sales mode, if you
00:02:31.440
will, hyperbole mode, you just say, oh, there's another one, and you're okay with it.
00:02:37.320
It doesn't bother you because there's sort of an honesty because it comes with a wink.
00:02:45.340
It's only when somebody tries to sell their dishonesty as actually the truth that it gets
00:02:55.460
But if you give me a wink, I go, okay, I see where you're going with this.
00:02:59.240
And when Van Jones said, yeah, we were willing to, you were ready to come out and say this
00:03:03.880
was a good speech, even if it wasn't, but then he goes on to say what it was the greatest
00:03:12.620
Do you believe that he really thought it was Joe Biden's best speech when he just winked
00:03:19.320
He literally just winked at you and told you that he would have no intention of shading
00:03:28.400
And then he tells you it was an extra great speech.
00:03:32.980
I have to say, I just appreciate it because it's not hiding anything.
00:03:37.000
There's a, there's a transparency there that you have to appreciate.
00:03:47.840
Even if I disagree with him on some political stuff, I always think he's the real deal.
00:03:53.620
Um, so yesterday, I think it was yesterday, I was trying to deprogram my most TDS infected
00:04:06.640
And the reason I use him as my example is that he's so smart.
00:04:12.300
If you were not really, really smart and also really well informed, this wouldn't be interesting.
00:04:19.960
It's just that, you know, you can't blame him for being dumb or, you know, just not following
00:04:28.780
So you've limited to, to TDS or I have it, right?
00:04:37.120
Once you've determined that people are smart and well-intentioned and, and reasonably informed.
00:04:42.900
And one of the hoaxes that he believed is that Trump had suggested drinking disinfectants.
00:04:54.160
That the news widely reported that Trump had at least noodled on the idea publicly of maybe
00:05:10.220
And as evidence, he said, look, it's right there on the, on the video.
00:05:21.840
Remember, my friend is logical, very committed to rational thought, which is the important part.
00:05:29.060
Very committed to reason and data and rational thought.
00:05:40.280
And I had explained to him that if you didn't know that there was legitimately a light technology
00:05:46.760
that the researchers were actively talking about at that period, they were actively talking
00:05:55.080
It was a conversation that I tweeted about, I talked about on Periscope, about putting light,
00:06:02.220
UV light, a certain kind, on a ventilator, sticking it, inserting it into the body, and
00:06:09.140
it would maybe shine that light on your trachea, possibly all the way to your lungs.
00:06:16.100
It was one of those things that had potential because the light would kill a virus, but it
00:06:20.600
Although, by the way, I think there was a warning today from the FDA saying that maybe that UV
00:06:32.480
But I went back and I looked at it, and I could see that Trump introduced the topic by
00:06:42.200
And then he said, is there something you could do, you know, like that?
00:06:46.360
But then he used the word disinfectant, which is the word that had been used by the researchers
00:06:58.140
So he used the word disinfectant once, separated by a little bit of time from the time he was
00:07:05.500
specifically talking about light as a disinfectant.
00:07:09.180
So there you'd say to yourself, oh, wait a minute, is that a new topic?
00:07:13.140
Because he talked about light as a disinfectant.
00:07:16.500
And then he talked about just the word disinfectant.
00:07:20.500
And there was a little bit of time that went by.
00:07:28.820
Except that if you listen to how he bookends the topic, he makes sure that you knew it was
00:07:35.560
So he started with light, talked about things, but used the word disinfectant by itself.
00:07:42.980
And then he closed that topic by making sure you knew it was about light.
00:07:49.480
Now, once I pointed this out to my friend and sent him a link to the actual article that
00:07:59.460
And I told him that, oh, and so then my friend said, yeah, but you can't tell me that Trump
00:08:07.440
was aware of this obscure little thing, to which I said, yeah, I can.
00:08:16.780
Because there are enough people that follow my Twitter feed.
00:08:26.220
And I do know that some members of the White House do, in fact, watch my periscopes and
00:08:36.480
In fact, the president has retweeted me, I don't know, several times.
00:08:41.040
So I know that the White House watches this topic.
00:08:45.800
And so how often do you get to tell your friend in an argument when he says, well, how would
00:08:51.860
How often do you ever get to say, well, you heard about it from me?
00:08:56.220
Which was sort of the best way an argument could ever go.
00:09:02.100
Now, I don't know if he heard about it from me.
00:09:09.380
And I know that what he was talking about was exactly that thing.
00:09:12.640
If you know what that thing is, and then you hear him talk about it, it's obvious that's
00:09:17.060
And so once I had convinced my highly rational friend, because now he saw it was real, he
00:09:24.300
knew exactly where it could have come from, me, and he saw that it had been bookended by
00:09:33.040
Do you think that he then said, my goodness, I didn't realize that I had been subject to
00:09:47.680
Believe it or not, though, he did accept that the president was talking about light as a
00:09:55.720
I actually convinced a real living person that the information that they got as news
00:10:02.180
was not true, on a very important point, that he had believed it was true, and had based
00:10:14.120
I'm trying to think of one time in my whole life, I've seen somebody go from, that's not
00:10:20.020
a fact, and I'm positive, to, oh, that is a fact.
00:10:26.160
So then did my friend say, I guess you make your point, Scott, I take back everything I've
00:10:31.880
said on this topic, it's clear now that you are completely right, and maybe even involved
00:10:44.640
Well, Scott, he said, you called that fake news, and I would say that's not fake news,
00:10:51.460
because fake news assumes that there's an intent to fake, whereas this is obviously just the
00:10:57.620
news people, maybe didn't know as much as you knew, or as you've explained now, as much
00:11:10.300
That would just be news that's incorrect on a horrible, horrible way, because it painted
00:11:16.640
the president as telling people to drink bleach, which is exactly how it was reported.
00:11:24.000
Nothing like that ever happened in the real world, but that's how it was reported.
00:11:28.320
Mostly the pundits were saying the drink bleach part.
00:11:30.620
So, yeah, so he changed it to the definition of what fake news is.
00:11:50.860
You've noticed, a lot of people said this, that the Democratic Convention didn't mention
00:11:57.300
Now, isn't that mind-blowing, that we spent all that time on impeachment, and it wasn't
00:12:04.840
even brought up, nor has Biden brought it up, as far as I can remember.
00:12:11.320
Have you ever seen Biden talk about impeachment as being a real thing?
00:12:16.080
And you have to ask yourself, what's up with that?
00:12:24.160
Now, it could be that the Democrats have tested that approach.
00:12:29.500
One assumes that they've done polling, and they've maybe done focus groups, and they
00:12:34.440
know that that topic just doesn't work for them.
00:12:39.020
But part of the reason might be, and I teach you this all the time, it's a fact of persuasion,
00:12:49.180
So your memory of one thing, if it's in any way similar to some other thing, they can start
00:13:00.480
If you were to ask the average citizen today, so not when it was happening, but today, if
00:13:07.740
you just stopped somebody in the street, Democrat, or let's say a Democrat, and you say, do you
00:13:20.800
Would they say accurately that it was something about Ukraine and a perfect letter and something
00:13:34.620
A lot of people would say that impeachment was about Russia collusion.
00:13:39.640
Because they won't, their brain will not separate Ukraine from Russia, even though it should.
00:13:51.320
And it will also seem like nonsense, because Trump was not removed from office.
00:13:58.680
So all they're going to know is that Russia collusion was not only a gigantic fake operation
00:14:05.380
to remove the president from office, which maybe you don't want to mention your team was
00:14:14.740
But at the same time, Durham is actively investigating the very people who are behind the Russia
00:14:22.900
So I think the Democrats don't want you to be thinking about the Russia collusion hoax.
00:14:29.900
And you would if you thought about impeachment, because first they wanted to impeach about
00:14:34.980
that, but they couldn't find anything that was purely Russian.
00:14:38.580
So they thought, what's as close as we can get to a Russian thing, maybe a Ukraine thing?
00:14:44.400
And then the public probably just merged it all.
00:14:48.460
I'll bet the average person cannot sort out what was impeachment about Russia, Ukraine,
00:14:56.400
But they might know that Durham talked to Brennan yesterday for eight hours, and that there's
00:15:04.040
at least one part of the investigation we know was falsified.
00:15:09.560
You know, the lawyer, Clyde Smith, who I guess he's pled guilty to falsifying FISA stuff for
00:15:20.760
Now, that alone is one of the worst abuses of, you know, government power I've ever seen.
00:15:27.320
So I can see why they would ignore the impeachment.
00:15:30.120
Now, if you were a Democrat, and it ever came up to your mind, hey, why is the most important
00:15:39.080
thing my party did last year, or it's hard to believe it was actually this year, it seems
00:15:45.120
like it was last year, but this year, why is the thing my party spent the most time on,
00:15:51.040
their biggest criticism, they're not mentioning now?
00:16:02.240
So that's got to give you a little less trust in your party if you're a Democrat.
00:16:10.280
A radio station in Cleveland fired one of their news people for using a racially insensitive
00:16:19.420
Now, when I saw the headline, I thought to myself, oh, my goodness, how could anybody
00:16:25.520
in 2020 use the N-word on the radio and think that's going to be okay?
00:16:33.440
How are they going to use that word and not know they're going to be fired immediately?
00:16:40.000
And then I read the article, and it wasn't the N-word, because, of course, nobody would
00:16:47.380
What he said was, and I think he was 24, 26, it was a young guy, and he said that Kamala
00:16:55.940
Harris, using his words, was the first colored vice president candidate, presidential candidate.
00:17:05.640
Now, he was immediately informed that that is an old-timey racially insensitive term, and
00:17:17.560
Here's what Black Lives Matter gets wrong, like really wrong.
00:17:22.500
The right response to this from Black Lives Matter should have been, you should immediately
00:17:36.460
Why should Black Lives Matter immediately and publicly say, whoa, whoa, whoa, you went too
00:17:48.480
He was simply somebody who didn't have, he didn't have whatever, I don't know, grounding
00:17:54.680
or context to know that that would be an offensive word.
00:17:59.380
Now, I've talked to you about the power of reciprocity, right?
00:18:04.320
What does it mean to the Black community that there were more white people protesting for
00:18:11.240
them than there were Black people protesting, at least in some number of places?
00:18:17.360
What does that mean to the Black community that there are so many white people who are
00:18:22.360
taking their position as aggressively as possible?
00:18:27.140
Because reciprocity, hey, you did something for me and you're asking nothing in return,
00:18:35.700
Now, if Black Lives Matter wanted to be persuasive, if they wanted to continue getting white people
00:18:42.460
on their side to take them seriously about the things that are the serious things that
00:18:47.540
need to be fixed, the best strategy for that would be reciprocity.
00:18:55.140
If you miss this easy, low-hanging fruit, you don't know anything about how to persuade,
00:19:03.520
except maybe fear and violence and whatever else.
00:19:10.340
If Black Lives Matter, and this won't happen, obviously, but let's say the Black community,
00:19:15.880
if anybody said, this is too far, he's been informed that that's a word not to use, it's
00:19:27.540
Let's all of us get together, white and black, and decide that the little stuff is unimportant.
00:19:36.740
Now, if they did that, how much more support would they get for everything they want?
00:19:44.220
A lot. It's a big deal. It's not a small deal. It's a big, big deal.
00:19:51.680
And the fact that this 26-year-old was thrown under the bus gives me a bad feeling.
00:19:59.600
It gives me a bad feeling about the Black community.
00:20:02.060
Because I say to them, and again, when you talk about a group of people, you're automatically
00:20:09.100
being misleading. So keep in mind, this is nothing about any individual, and it's always
00:20:15.920
risky to say anything about the average of people. Well, this group as a whole is doing
00:20:20.320
this or that. That's never completely fair. But the way it feels is that I'm watching tons
00:20:27.440
of white people giving and giving, and quite legitimately, and quite all with the right
00:20:32.540
interest to make the world a better place, to help the people who need the greatest help.
00:20:38.500
And you can't give back this little thing, such a small thing. Just give this one guy,
00:20:47.160
just give him a pass. Is that a lot to ask? Because if you can't give that, it's free,
00:20:54.740
it's easy, it's obvious, you can't give us that? How much do you want in return? How much work
00:21:04.920
should we put in to help, again, there's no individual who represents the group, but how
00:21:12.360
much should you give to a group who can't give you that much back? That's not asking a lot.
00:21:19.180
All right? Because remember, we all get the lesson. If you didn't know they're referring
00:21:25.620
to somebody in 2020 as colored, if you didn't know that's offensive, now you do. Didn't everybody
00:21:32.100
come out ahead? Aren't we all better for it? Isn't the whole point to educate, to improve,
00:21:39.340
you know, that we become better people? You know, we're imperfect, but hey, we're working
00:21:43.520
on it. You know, nobody's perfect, but look, I'm honestly working on it, trying to do what I can.
00:21:50.240
Isn't that what you want? Apparently not. All right. George Papadopoulos had some interesting
00:21:58.880
points about the fact that Brennan was interviewed by Durham. Now, the news says that Brennan is not
00:22:06.480
a target. He is simply a person they're talking to for information relative to the whole Russia
00:22:12.860
collusion stuff. And George Papadopoulos, you all know him from, if you're following any of the Russia
00:22:19.740
collusion story, you all know who he is. He's got a new book out whose name I can't remember, but I
00:22:24.640
invited him to be a guest on the Periscope to give us a little background. I haven't got an answer yet.
00:22:30.980
I just asked him before I got on. But maybe this week, if he says yes, we'll talk to him. He has
00:22:36.080
four questions to be asked of Brennan. Number one, ask about the Joseph Massoud, Azra Turk, I don't
00:22:44.100
know who Azra Turk is, identity and handlers. So apparently George Papadopoulos thinks there's
00:22:50.500
something with this George Massoud guy that if you dug down a little bit, you would find out some
00:22:56.840
stuff. Number two, ask about the UK and Australian intelligence used against the campaign. Have you
00:23:05.780
noticed the black hole on this topic? We're all watching this Russia collusion thing. And the words
00:23:12.960
Russia, Russia, Russia are the words in the headlines, the ones we're talking about. But with our own eyes,
00:23:19.660
we're seeing that this was a British operation. It's not maybe a British operation. Christopher Steele
00:23:27.760
was, you know, from the British intelligence. And then this next question gets to it the other
00:23:35.880
way, also from George Papadopoulos. Why were Trump advisors constantly being invited to London to meet
00:23:43.020
with agents? Why were they being invited to be with agents? Because the British intelligence was in
00:23:51.500
on something. Clearly British intelligence was involved in, let's say, influencing our elections.
00:24:02.460
And also Australian intelligence. So do you think anybody will ask any questions about that? Well,
00:24:09.460
they might ask the questions, but I don't know if we'll ever hear the answers. Because the answers
00:24:13.620
might be something the public, you know, can't hear, isn't supposed to hear anyway. But those are
00:24:18.760
pretty good questions. And the fourth thing that George Papadopoulos says is, maybe they should ask
00:24:24.060
Brennan about lying to Congress. And I'm thinking, are we all just going to ignore that? Is that what's
00:24:31.600
going to happen? That Brennan can lie to Congress? There won't be any doubt about it. There's no doubt.
00:24:37.740
Because you see what he said, you know, you can see what's true. And we'll just ignore it. We'll just
00:24:43.820
act like it didn't happen. Okay. Unless you think Brennan wasn't lying to Congress. So maybe.
00:24:54.220
All right, here's something that made me laugh yesterday when I realized it. And I'll give you
00:24:59.380
something that reminds me of. Because I'm famous, semi-famous, a little bit famous, whatever you want
00:25:10.120
to call it. I often think about what would happen if I died doing something stupid. And I feel as if
00:25:18.440
the moment before I was actually dead, I would feel so dumb that I did something that could have gotten
00:25:25.620
me killed. And sure enough, it did. And those last moments before I actually died, instead of thinking,
00:25:31.760
oh God, I'm going to die, that my actual thought would be, how stupid can I be? And that would be
00:25:39.140
my last breath. And I swear, this is an actual thought I have all the time. And an example would
00:25:45.740
be, let's say I thought to myself, you know, I like to do that rock climbing thing where they don't
00:25:52.580
have any, they don't have any support ropes on them. What's that called? Is it like free climbing
00:25:58.720
or something? And I don't have any skills for that. And really, you know, might be a little too old for
00:26:04.340
that kind of a sport, but I think I'm going to give it a shot. And then I'm, you know, I'm free climbing
00:26:09.460
up a cliff and I slip. And as I'm falling back in space, I'm not thinking to myself, oh, my life is
00:26:19.000
slashing before my eyes. I'm thinking to myself, I'm so stupid for trying to be a free rage rock
00:26:27.160
climber. So with that in mind, this is all to make this next thing funnier. Imagine if you will,
00:26:38.520
and I'll use Joe Biden's Joe Biden's technique. Close your eyes and imagine if you will.
00:26:45.880
It's the day after election day. And Joe Biden has so decomposed by election day,
00:26:54.040
that it's a landslide win for Trump. And you wake up after the election, you're a Democrat,
00:26:59.720
and you realize that you would have had a better result running absolutely anybody else on the
00:27:06.840
planet, except Joe Biden. Why was I so stupid? And it's not just going to hurt because you were wrong.
00:27:20.900
It's not going to hurt because you lost. It's not going to hurt because Trump won and you got another
00:27:28.580
four years of that. It's not going to hurt because you'll have to admit on TV or in other places that
00:27:34.740
you were sure Biden would win and he didn't. It's going to hurt because you will know the day after
00:27:44.240
the election, what you kind of suspect is true already, that Joe Biden is the last person in the
00:27:52.300
world you should pick to be your champion. Did you scour the 7 billion people on earth
00:27:58.260
and your champion, the one that you picked to represent your brand to save the country if not
00:28:04.580
the entire world, was the only guy who's passed his expiration date? That was your choice? That's
00:28:12.820
like me trying to be a free rock climber. That idea never sounded good. Let me be clear about this.
00:28:20.700
The day after election, when you've lost, remember, running Joe Biden as your champion
00:28:28.440
was never a good idea. I mean, I understand how he got there. It was the oddities of how primaries work
00:28:35.980
and, you know, because they had name recognition and, you know, there was one moderate, but there were
00:28:40.920
lots of progressives and they kind of gamed the system to keep Elizabeth Warren in there to take votes
00:28:47.220
away from Bernie until the last minute. So obviously the game was rigged for Biden.
00:28:55.920
But that's not going to make you feel any smarter for supporting him when you did. So when I thought
00:29:01.220
of that, I just laughed. I've decided that the best way to summarize Joe Biden's, let's say,
00:29:09.960
approach to campaigning is angry, squinty, caring. And it's better if you put a dash
00:29:17.140
between angry, squinty and caring, because that's all he's got. He gives you his squinty eyes
00:29:25.680
and he gives you his angry demeanor. And he tells you how much he cares. I care. I care about this
00:29:33.600
country. I'm going to protect this country as well as I've protected my family. What? Okay. Maybe that
00:29:41.940
was the wrong thing to say. Apparently people are going to look into how well I protected my family.
00:29:49.160
So angry, squinty, caring. I think that just summarizes him entirely. So this morning, Rush Limbaugh
00:29:57.660
is getting the full fake news treatment. They're doing the same trick that the fake news used to
00:30:04.080
create the fine people hoax and the drinking disinfectant hoaxes. They're done the same way.
00:30:09.500
Do you know how? They're done by cutting out the clarifying part of the quote. So if you see the
00:30:19.200
part, the first part of a quote or the first part of some statements, you might think, hey, that looks
00:30:24.900
pretty bad. But if you saw the rest of the statement, you say, oh, I get what you're saying.
00:30:30.260
You're not saying that bad thing. You're putting it in a different context. That's fine. So that's how
00:30:36.380
the hoaxes are created. They show the part that's true, and they leave out the other part that's true
00:30:41.180
that would have reversed its meaning. So they did that to Rush Limbaugh today. And so what Rush Limbaugh
00:30:49.760
really said, before I tell you how they took him out of context, was that he was comparing
00:30:55.680
the Biden bid for, let's say, empathy, maybe, or relating to him because he had lost family members.
00:31:05.700
And Rush said that we're supposed to feel sorry for Biden because his wife and child died. But then
00:31:12.220
the part they cut out, which is the clarifying part, they don't show that in the headline. They bury that in
00:31:19.200
the subtitle, or they bury it in the text, is the fact that, but why can't we show the same sympathy
00:31:26.660
for the president who just lost his brother, just lost him. It was brand new. The president is
00:31:34.160
literally still grieving, but we don't count that. Like, that doesn't count. He doesn't get any of our,
00:31:42.000
you know, our good thoughts for his. So if you see it in context, he's just making a, you know,
00:31:49.320
hypocrisy, why don't we treat them the same kind of a situation, which would be perfectly legitimate.
00:31:55.360
It's a reasonable political comment to say that one person's tragedy is being highlighted,
00:32:01.960
and another one's is being mocked, literally mocked. You know, the president's brother dying
00:32:07.600
was a subject of mockery, literally. And is it fair to point that out, that it's being treated
00:32:14.040
differently? No, it's the most common thing in news punditry, is to point out hypocrisy. It's not
00:32:20.520
very persuasive, but it's always part of the, you know, the general texture of this stuff. So if you
00:32:28.780
look at the tweets, the tweets will say the first part, we're supposed to feel sorry for Biden because
00:32:33.880
he lost his wife and children. And then they leave out the part where he puts it in context,
00:32:38.540
which would not have bothered you. 90% of the people who see the tweet or the headline will
00:32:47.120
never read the story, because it's one of those stories where you think the headline is the story.
00:32:52.500
Don't you see quite often? Sorry, I got to get rid of a troll here. Goodbye. All right.
00:33:10.600
So I tweeted after Biden's speech that Biden's darkened devices speech filled with anger and lies
00:33:19.060
as a national embarrassment. Now, part of the fun of that tweet is that I wanted to show you that
00:33:25.980
there are some words that can be applied to anybody. So I took words that are normally applied to Trump
00:33:32.960
by his critics. I simply just used the same kind of words and applied them to Biden. And you can see
00:33:39.020
that they fit. So if you think that these words say something about the candidate, you'd be wrong.
00:33:46.480
Because if you have words that fit every candidate, you're not saying anything. You're not saying
00:33:52.940
anything. And listen to this. This could literally fit any Republican, any Democrat. They give a speech.
00:34:00.280
They say some good things, some bad things about the country. And then you as the critic come in later
00:34:05.960
and say, it was a darkened devices speech filled with anger and lies. It's a national embarrassment.
00:34:11.420
Could you make that fit for just about any candidate giving any speech? Yes. So I made a fit to Biden.
00:34:21.500
And you can see that when they make these same words fit the president, do they fit? Well, in their
00:34:28.140
view of the world, yes. But if you don't understand that these same words would fit every candidate for
00:34:34.400
every speech, with some exception. There'd be probably some candidate who says nothing but
00:34:39.980
unicorns and rainbows. But it's uncommon. Generally, a politician is going to complain about what's wrong
00:34:47.680
before saying why they're the one that can fix it. So as long as you've got that complaining about
00:34:52.320
what's wrong, you can always say it's dark and divisive. It fits every time. All right.
00:34:57.600
Here's another funny thing that I thought about last night. So some of you saw my rant about the
00:35:05.720
fine people hoax. And it made quite a bit of news because there were lots of other people who were
00:35:12.820
making similar comments and amplifying each other. So it should have been one of the biggest things
00:35:18.940
that trended on Twitter yesterday, the fine people hoax. Did you ever see that in the Twitter
00:35:26.840
trending? Find people hoax? Has that ever trended? Because there's often a lot of talk about it.
00:35:37.140
Nope. Now, maybe, maybe, and I've missed it. So I will allow that I could have missed it.
00:35:44.420
But I think somebody would have pointed that out to me. Because usually if there's anything of that
00:35:49.720
much interest to me, and people know it, people DM me and they tweeted at me and say, hey, hey,
00:35:55.100
did you see this thing? Nobody has ever said to me, Scott, good job. It looks like you got that
00:36:02.040
fine people hoax trending. Because I don't think it trended. I don't think it did. Despite all the
00:36:12.260
people talking about it, one of the biggest stories didn't trend at all. Huh? How about that?
00:36:18.240
So here's the funny thought I had, and see if you would agree with this. I tweeted this. I said,
00:36:25.740
by now, thousands of news people have double checked the fine people transcript. Now, because
00:36:32.900
there were lots of people supporting the president pushing back on Biden's claim about the fine people
00:36:38.660
hoax, clearly you would expect that all the news people who believed it was true would just go back
00:36:45.720
to double check that they were right. Because often people tweeted the transcript. So they wouldn't
00:36:50.920
have to do any work. They would just have to be following any of these accounts that were
00:36:55.460
continuously retweeting the transcript. And maybe some of those reporters and journalists
00:37:02.420
and news people, maybe they took a minute to actually read it and remind themselves what actually
00:37:09.220
happened that day or to watch the videos that people were tweeting. And if they did,
00:37:13.880
how many of them, certainly not all of them, but how many of the hundreds, if not thousands of
00:37:21.280
news people who went and double checked that story, how many of them had an oh shit moment?
00:37:29.880
Now, if you think the oh shit moment is just about that being a hoax, because that's what hundreds of
00:37:36.700
them would have realized. They would have read it and they would have said, hey, every time I see this
00:37:41.400
clip, they leave out the second part where Trump says in direct language, just so there'll be no
00:37:46.540
confusion. I'm not talking about the white nationalists and the neo-Nazis. They should be
00:37:52.240
condemned completely. His exact words. Now, if you leave those out, you could easily be confused by
00:37:59.180
what he said before. But because he knew that at the time, that it wasn't as clear as it could be,
00:38:04.520
he put those words in. Without being asked, he simply realized that it could be taken ambiguously.
00:38:11.840
So he clarified as clearly as you can. No, I'm not talking about the marchers. I'm talking about
00:38:17.460
people who were there just about the statue. Now, whether or not there were people there about
00:38:23.100
the statue who were finding people or not, the president clarified his assumption. Worst case scenario,
00:38:30.000
he didn't have current information about who attended. That's it. The worst it could be is
00:38:36.540
that he didn't know exactly who attended. Do you know who else didn't know exactly who attended?
00:38:42.320
The entire news media. Nobody knows who attended. That is completely unknown. I know who attended
00:38:51.340
because I actually did reporting on it. I actually talked to people who attended and said,
00:38:58.320
do you support the racists? Are you for or against the statues? Why would you come to an event that is
00:39:05.000
so clearly organized by white supremacists? Why would you be here if you're not one of them?
00:39:11.780
And they had good reasons. For example, some were local. It was walking distance. They wanted the
00:39:19.280
statues to stay. They weren't with anybody. They were just walking distance. It was their city. It was
00:39:24.860
their park. And so there was no, there was nothing to stop them from walking there. So they thought
00:39:30.360
they'd walk over there, take a look, maybe voice their opinion about keeping the statues. And I asked
00:39:35.980
them, well, do you agree with the racist? And they'd be, hell no. I'm not a racist. I don't agree with
00:39:42.600
the racist. I just live nearby. I heard there was going to be a thing about the statues. I didn't see
00:39:47.700
any posters. It was in the news. My friends told me there was a thing about the statue. Was there
00:39:53.620
anybody who told me I couldn't go? Did somebody say, oh, wait, no, this is only for the white
00:39:58.660
supremacists. You're not allowed to go. You're not allowed to walk two blocks in this direction
00:40:04.000
to see Antifa and white supremacists getting in a fight. I've told you this before. If I ever hear
00:40:10.540
that Antifa and white supremacists are going to have a protest and a counter protest in my town,
00:40:16.220
I would walk five miles to watch that stuff. Because I would like watching them beat each
00:40:22.480
other up. Like, it's the only time you can watch a fight while hoping for everybody to lose. I mean,
00:40:28.520
it's a very rare thing. And so there were real people there. And one of the people I talked to was
00:40:38.780
Jewish. He had a Jewish heritage. I don't know what his practice was, but Jewish heritage. Do you think a
00:40:46.240
guy with Jewish heritage went to the Charlottesville event and he was in favor of keeping the statues for
00:40:56.260
historical reasons or free speech reasons? I don't know. He had his own reasons. But he obviously
00:41:01.920
disavowed the racists because the racists were saying things about him. He was one of the people
00:41:09.380
that the racists were against. But he was just there for his own reasons. And he knew that, you know, some
00:41:16.840
rough people had organized it. But he said to himself quite reasonably, am I not allowed to go?
00:41:22.840
Well, stop texting me when you know I'm on Periscope. All right. So anyway, the press did not talk to
00:41:37.120
anybody, but I did. And so I have some idea what happened there. Now, how many people are waking up to
00:41:44.880
this thought, oh, wow, this was a hoax all the time, because they looked at the transcript and realized it was a
00:41:50.420
hoax. But that's not the fun part. Somebody says, how did I know he was a Jew? He told me.
00:41:58.520
Do you think I tested his DNA or something? No, he told me. Now, if you're assuming that he lied to me,
00:42:07.920
I suppose anything's possible. But keep in mind, I talked to several people who were also representing
00:42:13.260
several other people that they went with. So just the people I talked to were aware of or went with,
00:42:19.840
I don't know, maybe 20 or so people that I'm pretty reasonably sure had the characteristic of
00:42:25.500
fine people, and they were not racist. Although I disagree with them on statues, on anti-statue.
00:42:32.620
So here's the oh shit moment. The oh shit moment is not the point where a Democrat realizes that the
00:42:40.880
fine people hoax is a hoax. That's the first part of the oh shit. Do you know what the second part is?
00:42:47.700
Because until recently, it was just this nagging thing about the president that was a persistent
00:42:57.960
hoax that people believed. And that's sort of all it was. It was bad, but that's what it was.
00:43:05.200
But recently, Biden made it the centerpiece for his campaign. What would happen to Biden's campaign
00:43:13.560
if the very centerpiece, the thing he built his entire campaign on, which is the fine people hoax,
00:43:20.020
and Biden says it pretty directly, there's not much interpretation I'm putting on this at all.
00:43:26.400
Biden features it as his primary story of why the president needs to be replaced. It's the central
00:43:33.840
theme of his campaign. And here's the problem. What if it's not true? And it is not true. But what
00:43:44.260
about all the people who said, well, Biden's got a pretty good thing there. And then they looked at
00:43:49.080
the transcript and realized, oh shit. Oh shit. This isn't just about debunking the hoax anymore.
00:43:58.260
This is Biden's entire campaign. And it's based on something which is objectively easily debunked.
00:44:07.340
You don't even have to wonder. You just read the transcript. It's right there. In plain words,
00:44:14.560
you just have to look at it. And then you would realize that the hoax works by cutting off the second
00:44:19.320
half that clarifies what the president meant when he said he condemned it totally, the neo-Nazis and
00:44:26.620
white nationalists. So imagine if you're the Democrats and you've awakened to the idea that
00:44:33.080
your candidate has built a foundation on something that is easily debunked. And it's worse than that.
00:44:41.140
It's not just an ordinary bad thing. It's something that created gigantic division in this country
00:44:47.480
because it supports all the other hoax allegations. Think of it this way. If you had heard five
00:44:55.000
allegations about somebody, it doesn't matter who you're talking about. Here are five allegations
00:45:00.000
and all five of the allegations are a little sketchy. It's like somebody who this person fired,
00:45:08.160
said bad things about them. You're like, well, that's what fired people say. Or it happened 20
00:45:15.080
years ago and he wasn't directly involved. And you go, well, maybe it's true, but that was a long time
00:45:21.760
ago. And I'm not sure we could trust the people who say they heard it. But what if one of the five
00:45:28.860
things you knew to be true because you saw it with your own eyes, you heard it with your own ears.
00:45:34.760
So one of the five, you know to be true. What does that make you think about the other four
00:45:40.680
that were not as obviously true? You think those are true too, don't you? And that's what the
00:45:48.300
fine people hoax did. It made everything else that Trump has been accused of become real even without
00:45:56.680
credible information. Because there's that one of them that's so obviously real. I heard it with my
00:46:02.580
own ears. I saw it with my own eyes. And that's literally what people say. They'll say it over and
00:46:07.200
over again. Don't gaslight me and tell me this didn't happen. I was, I watched it live. But they
00:46:14.440
didn't. They watched the fake edit without the clarification. So once they realize that they've
00:46:20.800
been duped by that, they realize that there's an easy play to take Biden out. And I'm going to take
00:46:26.840
that play. And the play goes like this. I am going to be such a raging asshole about this fine people
00:46:34.340
hoax that I will be harder and harder to ignore. And once I've dismantled this thing,
00:46:44.440
I will have dismantled Biden at the same time. And as I've said, this is personal. This isn't
00:46:51.780
politics. This isn't about supporting Trump. It does that, obviously. It's not about hurting Biden
00:46:58.500
per se. It's about the fact that Biden has painted a target on my back and on the back of all Trump
00:47:05.880
supporters with this hoax. This is not a normal hoax. A hoax about Russia is just about some
00:47:13.920
professional campaign people and politicians, you know, allegedly did something with another
00:47:19.680
country. No, this is about targeting your citizens. And I'm one of them. All right, I'm leaving out the
00:47:27.100
cursing for this one because I didn't give a warning. I think it's fair to curse if I give you a warning,
00:47:31.060
but not if I don't. And so that's the play. So Joe Biden is not only a liar and an asshole,
00:47:42.060
but he's perpetrating the worst hoax in American history. It's the worst, not because it's the most
00:47:50.420
untrue or anything like that, but because it targets citizens. It divides the country. It supports all the
00:47:57.300
other bad thoughts that we have. It's incredible. You may have seen Greg Gottfeld took on the hoax
00:48:03.240
also on The Five yesterday, including taking his own network to task for not being a little more
00:48:10.380
clear about the hoax nature of that story. So, and of course, he was immediately attacked by
00:48:18.060
Bulwark. Have you ever heard of Bulwark? There are some kind of very left publication that operates
00:48:26.980
basically as just a hit piece. So if you have hit pieces coming after you, you're doing something
00:48:33.700
right. They don't send hits after somebody who's not over the target, if you know what I mean.
00:48:39.740
So yesterday I had a strange experience, which was MSNBC contacted me through my publisher to ask me
00:48:49.860
to be on one of their shows, one of the political newsy shows. Now, what would you have done if you
00:48:58.020
were me and MSNBC wanted to have you on the show? They didn't say, but I assume it's because of my
00:49:04.840
video about the fine people hoax, giving me an opportunity to bring that message that it's a hoax
00:49:11.460
to an audience that largely wouldn't have seen it until now. So I should take it, right? It seems
00:49:18.540
like perfect opportunity. I've got a message. I want to reach this audience. That is the audience I want
00:49:24.460
to reach. No, I turned it down because I'm not an idiot. I live in the real world. And I tweeted this
00:49:33.560
to see if people could know why this was a trap. Here's why it was a trap. Number one,
00:49:39.880
it came out of left field that this is the first time they want me on camera. Really? The only time
00:49:46.300
I've ever been on MSNBC is when I was on book tour. And that's just sort of an automatic booking.
00:49:52.300
You know, somebody famous has a book, bring them on, see what they have to say. So, but outside of the
00:49:58.080
book tour process, I don't know that I've been invited to MSNBC, or if I have not for years,
00:50:05.800
why yesterday? Well, I'll tell you why. Because I was over the target and I drew blood. And when I made
00:50:15.120
so much noise about this hoax, and specifically the way I did it, it became a little bit harder to
00:50:22.040
ignore. And so if they can't ignore me, they have to extinguish me. And so I immediately became on the
00:50:29.920
target set for people to be discredited. Now, why would they invite the cartoonist to talk about
00:50:37.540
this when they could have invited, let's say, Steve Cortez, somebody whose entire job, you know,
00:50:45.760
at least lately, his entire job is talking about politics, and representing the, you know, the Trump
00:50:52.100
worldview, has been a paid political, you know, person, funded, whatever you want to call it,
00:51:00.220
on CNN, until CNN didn't like him bringing up the fine people hoax. Wouldn't he be the perfect person to
00:51:06.660
have a credible discussion about this hoax? Yeah, he'd be a real good choice. Very credible.
00:51:14.760
How about Joel Pollack of Breitbart has written about this topic a number of times, tweets about it a
00:51:23.220
number of times. He's followed the campaigns, literally traveled with Democrats during the
00:51:28.340
primaries, written books on the topic, completely credible voice for, you know, a worldview. Why not
00:51:37.200
invite him? Why would you invite the cartoonist? Well, it's obviously it's the
00:51:44.740
Scott Baio, my pillow move. What you want to do is you want to take the strongest message from the
00:51:51.800
side you don't like. You want to take the strongest message and pair it with the most ridiculous
00:51:57.640
messenger. Now, when I say most ridiculous, I'm not insulting Scott Baio or, you know, Mike Lindell,
00:52:05.560
the my pillow inventor. Both awesome people who, you know, did great things in their profession.
00:52:11.720
But you know that the play was that their audience doesn't know that I've spent most of the last four
00:52:19.080
years talking nothing but politics and persuasion. And this topic of a hoax in a political realm is
00:52:26.560
exactly my expertise. Meaning I'm a trained hypnotist. I write and talk about persuasion.
00:52:32.620
This is that it's persuasion in the context of politics. I'm actually the perfect person to talk to,
00:52:37.880
but not to their audience. I would be introduced as the Dilbert guy, first of all. So they would frame
00:52:48.000
me as a non-credible person. And then they say, why do you believe this thing that's clearly
00:52:53.100
wrong? Because we all heard it with our own ears. And then I would give my thing and then they would
00:52:59.640
talk over me. And then they would, then they would run out of time. And that's it. So I would be completely
00:53:07.340
discredited by not having enough time to make my point because everything is time limited on TV by
00:53:14.140
necessity. And here's the other trick. Smirkanish did this to me once. So Smirkanish is one of the more
00:53:22.080
reasonable people on CNN. I think he's actually quite reasonable. Been on the show a few times.
00:53:28.780
One of the times I was on his show, I agreed to be on the show. And after I'd agreed, and this is very,
00:53:35.000
this is key. After I'd agreed to be on, they said, oh, we're also going to have another guest at the same
00:53:42.100
time who will be criticizing you. Right? Now, as a professional, I would typically go ahead
00:53:52.060
and, you know, do it just because I said I was going to do it. It's bad for him to agree and then
00:53:57.460
pull down. In retrospect, I should have pulled down. Like if, if I could replay it today, I would
00:54:04.580
have said, oh, I had agreed to be a guest. I had not agreed to be on a panel. If you want a panel
00:54:10.440
type of guest, maybe I could recommend somebody, you know, Steve Cortez. He'd be perfect because you
00:54:17.500
got to be able to get that, you know, tight little message out. And there's some people who are really
00:54:21.640
good at that and they're professionals. Why not get one of them? But instead I, I took it. And of
00:54:27.620
course it went exactly the way you think that between the time limit, between Spurconish's
00:54:32.860
questions and my critic, my point got compressed to not much of a point by the time it was over.
00:54:40.420
There isn't much, you know, counterplay. Compare that to Sam Harris, who a few years ago invited me on
00:54:47.380
his podcast. We had different views of politics, but Sam Harris is a, a reasonable, credible person
00:54:54.660
who was legitimately interested in my opinion, because it was so different from his own. And yet
00:55:00.700
thought I had at least enough possibility, if I could say that, that it was worth hearing and worth
00:55:07.220
wrestling with it. It was not time limited, not in any real way. So I, I had all the give and take
00:55:14.120
all the time I wanted, as did he. And he's a reasonable person who isn't just going to talk
00:55:19.720
over me and, you know, try to use up the time or something stupid like that. So the Sam Harris thing
00:55:25.620
made perfect sense, but the TV stuff can often be a trap. So, uh, that's my first signal that I was
00:55:33.880
over the target. I I've received other signals that this is really bad for Biden. Uh, I can't tell
00:55:41.220
you exactly what I mean by that, but here's, here's some of the initial, uh, takes on how I plan to take
00:55:49.140
Biden out of contention. Now here's the trick. You don't want to take him completely out because you
00:55:54.820
want him to actually be the top of the ticket on election day. You don't want Kamala Harris to be the
00:56:00.180
top of the ticket because she might actually look competent or they could sell her that way.
00:56:05.800
Uh, whereas Biden is going to be pretty degraded by, um, election day. So you want him to stay.
00:56:11.780
You just want him to be discredited completely. Here's one way I would do it. I would ask somebody
00:56:18.040
in the press to get a comment from an Israeli official. It could be Benjamin Netanyahu.
00:56:25.120
Could be, let's say, um, any Israeli diplomat, you know, from, from Israel and ask them this question.
00:56:35.040
Hey, you know, we're, we're having this conversation about this Charlottesville thing. Obviously you watch
00:56:40.840
American political news. Why wouldn't they? And you saw the same event and you saw the chanters who
00:56:47.800
were these tiki torches saying anti-Semitic things. Do you think that the president was referring
00:56:54.940
to the, the, the marchers as the fine people? Let's ask Israel because if Israel hasn't detected
00:57:03.200
any anti-Semitism, do you think you should? Because I would propose that Israel is very good
00:57:11.920
at detecting anti-Semitism. Would we all agree with that? Is there anybody in the world who would
00:57:18.420
disagree with the statement that Israel, especially the politicians are very good at detecting anti-Semitism?
00:57:26.820
I would say 10 out of 10. If you were to rank their ability to identify anti-Semitism, you might say
00:57:34.760
they're even over-sensitive in some situations. That would be your opinion. You know, their opinion
00:57:40.240
would differ, but you might even say that they're never going to undershoot the mark.
00:57:44.960
They might go a little further than you would go and say something was anti-Semitic when you thought,
00:57:51.720
well, it wasn't exactly anti-Semitic, but I could see how you'd see it that way.
00:57:56.080
But would they have simply failed to notice if a president said in public that neo-Nazis and white
00:58:04.760
nationalists or anybody who supported them, again, anybody who supported them, if he had said that they
00:58:11.440
were fine people, do you think Israel would have just let that go? I think that's a good question,
00:58:18.480
don't you? Somebody should ask them to comment. Put them on the record. Is it true or not?
00:58:27.180
How about this? Have you checked PolitiFact to see if the fine people hoax is true or false?
00:58:33.280
Well, I have. And you know what PolitiFact does, right? They've got this little true or false meter,
00:58:42.480
so it's like a little graphic, and they say something's completely true, the needle is over
00:58:48.060
here, or completely false, the needle's over here, or sometimes, you know, it's true-ish,
00:58:53.040
so they'll put the needle in the middle. Where do you think they put the needle for the fine people
00:58:58.400
hoax? Do you think it was, you know, somewhere in the middle, difference of opinion, maybe at the
00:59:06.280
right or the left? What do you think? How do you think they handled it? This will blow your mind.
00:59:12.600
Are you ready? They omitted it. They omitted it. They handled the hoax, so it's a topic on PolitiFact,
00:59:20.680
and they just showed the transcript. Do you know why they just showed the transcript and left out
00:59:28.800
the needle? Because otherwise, people would point to them and say, PolitiFact says it was false.
00:59:35.320
Did they say it was false? Well, they showed you the transcript, and the transcript says it's false.
00:59:41.500
It's right there. The exact words. I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists.
00:59:47.720
They should be condemned completely. Those words are there. So where's my little graphic?
00:59:55.020
You see what's happening, right? This is not some weird conspiracy theory thinking. Find me anything
01:00:01.780
else that PolitiFact left off the image. Find me any. Just find me one other example where they left
01:00:09.760
off the little graphic. Now, I think somebody should point that out. Wouldn't you like to know
01:00:19.100
Israel's opinion? Wouldn't you like to know why PolitiFact is the only one they left that out?
01:00:24.580
Or there might be others, but I'd like to see those if there are. Here's another one I'd like to see
01:00:31.520
asked. And I would like to see this in the form of a cognitive test for Joe Biden. And the first one
01:00:39.720
would go like this. So question number one on Joe Biden's cognitive test. I tweeted this earlier.
01:00:46.200
If you hear someone say these words, quote, I condemn totally the white nationalists and neo-Nazis.
01:00:53.260
How do you interpret that? And there are two choices. You interpret it as somebody has condemned
01:01:00.340
those groups or to support those groups. Now, you'd say to yourself, that's kind of an easy
01:01:07.940
cognitive question because the answer is actually in the question. If the statement is, I condemn totally
01:01:16.780
white nationalists and neo-Nazis. How can you get this one wrong? Well, Joe Biden gets it wrong.
01:01:25.540
Right? This is why it's a good test for Joe Biden, because he can't get this one right. He thinks that
01:01:32.440
the words, I'm not talking about the white nationalists and the neo-Nazis, they should be
01:01:37.340
condemned totally. He thinks those words literally mean support for those groups. So that's a fair test,
01:01:45.360
isn't it? How about this one? Question number two for Joe Biden. When the FBI, when the FDA said today
01:02:00.500
that, so this is something new from the FDA, a warning about using UV light externally. It says,
01:02:08.280
when the FDA said today that UVC lamps used for disinfection purposes may pose potential health and
01:02:16.900
safety risks, what do they mean? Is the FDA telling people don't drink bleach? Or are they saying be
01:02:26.340
cautious of UVC lamps? Which one is it? Because Joe Biden would answer this, that they mean don't drink
01:02:35.660
bleach. Because he thinks the president once suggested drinking disinfectants, which people
01:02:43.160
talk about as bleach. So Joe Biden couldn't get this right. He would think that the FDA was saying don't
01:02:49.940
drink disinfectants. When the FDA was talking about light, using the very word, this is actually the
01:02:56.760
FDA's own word, UVC lamps for disinfection purposes. Disinfection. It's the same word that the
01:03:04.640
president used when he was talking about light. All right. In a separate story. Oh, here's another
01:03:15.540
one. You want to go deep into conspiracy theory? Come with me. Come with me. I'm going to take you deep
01:03:25.460
into, holy cow, what's going on territory. Are you ready? First of all, ask the press to interview or to
01:03:35.200
put in a call for anyone to contact them and say, I was at the Charlottesville event and I'm not a
01:03:42.280
racist, but I was just there for my own purposes. And then explain why they would go to such an event.
01:03:47.300
So the press could do that, right? How hard would it be for ABC, CNN, MSNBC to just say,
01:03:55.040
hey, if you were there and you think you are one of those fine people, can you contact us?
01:04:00.600
We'd like to get you on record. Maybe verify if you're such a fine person or not. How hard would
01:04:06.560
it be to do that? It wouldn't be hard because I did that. That's how I interviewed people in the
01:04:15.320
fine people category. I just said, I'm open to talking to them and they contacted me on Twitter.
01:04:20.620
It was that easy. One tweet, all the information they need about who went there. But are you ready
01:04:27.540
to go darker? Do you want to go down a level? Do you know those pictures you saw of the marchers
01:04:35.360
with the tiki torches? Did you say to yourself, those don't look like the racists I'm used to seeing?
01:04:43.240
Did you ever have that thought? Because they seemed young and strong and, dare I say, Aryan.
01:04:52.620
And they looked, because of what they were chanting and because of the tiki torches and because it was
01:04:58.640
at night and because they had a certain look about them as being, shall we say, middle class or higher,
01:05:07.040
possibly high income? They even looked like they might have gone to prep schools. They looked like
01:05:14.040
exactly the people that would scare the shit out of you if there were many of them. In other words,
01:05:22.160
if you saw, let me put it this way, you've seen lots of video and pictures of, let's say, the KKK
01:05:28.380
gathering to do an event. Picture in your mind what the people who showed up who were avowed
01:05:35.740
racists, what do they look like? Get that image in your mind. Do they look like really well-dressed
01:05:43.620
preppies who are 25-ish or under, have good clean haircuts, and they look like they just came out of
01:05:54.480
fashion catalog? Do they look like that? Have you ever seen a group of racists in the United States
01:06:01.400
who looked exactly like Hitler youth? Huh. What if I taught you about things that are a little bit too
01:06:10.400
on the nose? A little bit too on the nose? Now let me be as clear as I can, because this is the part
01:06:18.220
that will be taken out of context. I'm sure there were real racists at an event organized by real
01:06:25.820
racists. Okay, so there's no question there were real racists there, all right? One of them killed
01:06:33.820
Heather Heyer with a car. So nobody's arguing whether there were real racists in attendance,
01:06:43.560
but what is it about real racists that they all seem to have in common? Maybe not 100%, but largely
01:06:52.300
as an average. They're not really photogenic, are they? They're not too photogenic. Hmm. So if you were
01:07:02.840
going to have a rally and your intention was to just, say, promote your point of view, how would you do it?
01:07:11.000
Well, I think you do it exactly the way the KKK does it. They would, you know, legally, if possible,
01:07:17.880
get in an event to have a protest or an event. They would gather, it would be a scraggly bunch of
01:07:25.020
people, and they would have their signs, and maybe they'd say some stuff. That's how you do it.
01:07:30.760
Is the KKK trying to scare the shit out of you? Are they? Because they are scary in the sense that,
01:07:40.200
you know, if there were more of them, you know, it would be even bigger problem. But
01:07:51.280
Just fact check me on that. Except for Charlottesville,
01:07:55.860
is there, have there been other events that are these, you know, KKK,
01:08:00.620
white nationals, whatever, were they ever trying to scare you? Because the Charlottesville thing
01:08:07.720
is designed specifically to scare you. Why would they do that? What would be the point
01:08:14.240
of making themselves look scary? Because how does that help them? Did it help the people with the
01:08:22.460
tiki torches to be especially scary looking? Or would it have been enough to just gather and march
01:08:30.520
and say their little slogans? So here's the thing. Here's my challenge to the press. Hey, press,
01:08:40.920
see if you can find one of the people with the tiki torches. Because we have tons of video,
01:08:47.280
tons of photographs. We know exactly what they look like. They didn't wear masks.
01:08:56.260
How come you've never seen, somebody says fact check equals you are wrong. Why have we never seen an
01:09:03.120
interview of one of those people with the torches? Because you know what was interesting about them
01:09:07.560
is they didn't wear masks or hoods. What kind of people would walk in front of hundreds of cameras
01:09:15.200
carrying a tiki torch and saying something that would ruin the rest of their life in the United
01:09:20.400
States? And it would know that. Certainly would know it. Now when you see the the fringy KKK people
01:09:27.500
marching and you say to yourself, hey, you know, they're ruining their lives too because people can
01:09:32.720
see you. We know who you are. Well, what kind of lives did they have in the first place, right?
01:09:37.980
Is the group of the 12 KKK people who show up at some park, were they killing it in life? Was one
01:09:46.360
of them a CEO of a major company? Not so much, right? They didn't have, they don't look like a group
01:09:53.380
that's got a lot to lose. But the people marching in Charlottesville were young, probably educated,
01:10:00.600
good looking. They had a lot to lose. A lot to lose. So, so here's the thing. Why have we never
01:10:13.860
seen an interview with one of those tiki torch people? Does that raise some questions about the
01:10:20.280
press? That nobody in the press has found even one tiki torch person to just to just put on put on the
01:10:28.700
stage and put on camera and say, look, what the heck were you thinking with this tiki torch stuff?
01:10:34.520
Remember, these were people who did this in public with no masks, walking by hundreds of cameras,
01:10:41.300
as well as all the news crews. They were trying to be seen with their actual faces. You think you can't
01:10:47.820
find one of those people who would go on TV and say the same thing that they were apparently willing to say
01:10:53.820
in public, in cameras? How about that? I see people mentioning the Proud Boys in the comments.
01:11:03.860
They didn't look like the Proud Boys. So if you've seen the Proud Boys, they do have a distinctive look.
01:11:12.560
I'm not sure how to describe it, but there's definitely a look to the Proud Boys, and it wasn't
01:11:16.580
that. It didn't look like it at all. So now I'm not going to say that they were paid actors,
01:11:23.800
actors, or crisis actors. I'm just going to put the question out there. Have you ever seen a
01:11:28.920
situation where there would be so many people involved in one of the biggest stories of the
01:11:33.520
year, and nobody has talked to, A, any of the people who would claim to be fine people who
01:11:39.620
attended? Nobody? No major publication? Couldn't find anybody? I found several with no effort
01:11:46.660
whatsoever, but the major publications? No interest in actually talking to anybody who attended.
01:11:51.340
Interesting, isn't it? I think the New York Times did interview a few people, like, you know,
01:11:57.180
when it was fresh, when they were actually there. But I don't think anybody has talked to anybody
01:12:02.880
after the fact, and it would be easy to find them. So just ask yourself, what kind of a world do you
01:12:10.580
live in? And is the Charlottesville fine people hoax? Let me leave you with this final thought.
01:12:19.960
Given what you saw, do you think it was domestic? Do you think that only people from the United States,
01:12:27.420
who only have the interests of the United States, which might be different than your view,
01:12:31.880
but do you think it was only citizens of the United States who were the only ones involved
01:12:38.920
with the Charlottesville tiki torch carriers? Do you think so? Because it feels unlikely to me.
01:12:48.460
Because it was a little bit too on the nose, a little bit too camera ready. Have you noticed that
01:12:55.860
the KKK and the white nationalists and the neo-Nazis don't really have a track record before then
01:13:02.260
or after them of doing camera ready staged events? Have you noticed that they don't seem to have that
01:13:10.000
capability? But that day they had that capability. Not only did they have the capability, but they had
01:13:16.740
it really, really strongly. Do you think that all came from just some Americans?
01:13:21.880
And if Joe Biden is using the Charlottesville hoax as his main campaign theme, could it be said
01:13:30.820
that Joe Biden is outside that sphere of influence? Is Joe Biden siding with a foreign adversary?
01:13:40.760
Is there any foreign adversary who would want an event like a tiki torch carrying people? Is there any
01:13:50.520
foreign adversary who might want to see that in the United States? So ask yourself if Joe Biden is on
01:13:56.680
the side of the United States on that topic, or maybe on the side of somebody else? Now, let me say this
01:14:03.300
as clear as possible. I don't know what was up with those people. And I don't know why nobody's talked
01:14:10.800
to them. But it would be easy to debunk everything that I'm suggesting is possible. And let me be as clear
01:14:18.120
as I can with my language. I'm only suggesting things that are possible. I'm not suggesting things
01:14:23.900
that I know to happen. It's not a specific claim. I'm just saying that the news hasn't come close
01:14:33.200
to doing the news business on this topic. Because the news business would really require them to dig
01:14:40.860
in a little bit with those tiki torch guys. And why was this one so camera ready? And then also to dig
01:14:48.280
in and find out if there were some fine people there. Anybody that actually was a decent person
01:14:53.640
who attended the event and did not support the races.
01:14:57.220
somebody says, so the trolls are coming for me. So what you should see today, if what I'm saying
01:15:08.900
is as damaging as I, as it is, it is that damaging, because Biden made the gigantic strategic mistake,
01:15:17.300
maybe the mistake, possibly the biggest mistake I've ever seen a politician ever make, is that he put a
01:15:25.340
focus of his campaign on an easily disprovable hoax. Now, that might be the biggest mistake anybody's
01:15:33.140
made. And he has, on top of that, made the entire thrust of his, you know, his proposition of why he
01:15:41.000
should replace Trump, the entire thrust of it is that he's the one with good character and good judgment.
01:15:47.320
But he based his campaign on a hoax. That's easily debunked. That shows that he's either really stupid,
01:15:58.000
right? Or he's pure evil. Because if he's pushing this just for political purposes, and he knows it's
01:16:06.440
not true, he's dividing the country in the worst possible way right in front of you. And that is
01:16:12.320
completely disqualifying. But if he literally doesn't know that it didn't happen, the way he
01:16:19.080
describes it, if he doesn't know, then he's far too stupid to be president. And I don't think there's
01:16:25.200
another possibility. The Democrats would say, well, the other possibility is it really happened.
01:16:31.860
No, read the transcript. It didn't happen. Neither did the disinfectant story.
01:16:37.740
So, yeah, possibly the biggest blunder of any politician running for president of all time.
01:16:46.380
You could argue that Dukakis getting in the tank was pretty bad. Maybe George Bush, the senior, saying,
01:16:53.760
read my lips, no new taxes. Those were bad. But the fine people hoax, I think it beats them.
01:17:00.380
Because it's going to take Biden out of the election. And I'm going to see to that personally,
01:17:06.620
but not until... Not until I get rid of this guy. Oh, where was he? Nah, he disappeared.
01:17:19.620
All right. Somebody says that his speechwriters know the truth. I don't know. Don't really know.
01:17:26.900
Somebody says the tiki torches are part of the color revolutions. I don't know what that is.
01:17:39.220
I'm looking at your comments to see if I'm hitting or missing on this,
01:17:42.920
because your feedback tells me if I'm in the zone or not.
01:17:49.800
Yeah, so people think that maybe Biden is too out of it to even know.
01:17:53.560
You know, the fact that he's being praised for not being insane is crazy.
01:18:00.220
All right, that's enough for now. I'll talk to you later.