Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1344 Scott Adams： News Propaganda, Reframing Everything, Biden Versus Putin, and LOTS More

00:00:00.000 Wow, are you lucky. Oh, you are so lucky today. Because today will be the best

00:00:10.920 live stream of Coffee with Scott Adams of all time. And I'm not even kidding. I've got content

00:00:17.960 here. Look at that. Look at that. Pages. It's all the good stuff. It's in my wheelhouse today.

00:00:24.400 So we'll be spending some time in my wheelhouse. And if you'd like to enjoy it,

00:00:29.080 all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tanker, chalicers, nine, a canteen, 0.87

00:00:34.100 jugger, flask, confest, love, any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee.

00:00:40.240 And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day,

00:00:45.120 the thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip.

00:00:48.880 And it's going to be a good one today. Go.

00:00:51.360 Oh, it wasn't good. It was great. So let's talk about all the things. Number one,

00:01:04.360 I don't know what you would call the best thing about the pandemic, if there is such a thing.

00:01:09.820 But I would like to nominate on my short list of best things about the pandemic,

00:01:15.840 a video, which I tweeted around this morning, in which Mick Jagger teams up with Dave Grohl

00:01:24.180 for a duet over Zoom. And I guess they wrote the song, they wrote the song just about the pandemic.

00:01:31.660 And it's really good. And I don't really know if it's good because of the context,

00:01:41.320 you know, that I wanted to hear. I basically wanted to see those two do a duet about the pandemic.

00:01:46.920 As soon as you see it, you're like, yes, I do want this. I do want to see this. But I'll tell you

00:01:51.740 what made me feel the best. Mick Jagger is 77. He's 77. And, you know, you can tell he's a certain

00:02:02.200 age, but my God, he acts like he's just age didn't affect him somehow. How does he do that? I don't

00:02:10.040 know. Here's the other best thing about the pandemic that looks like the worst thing, but it might

00:02:18.100 eventually turn into a good thing, which is the teachers' unions, their malign influence.

00:02:26.100 The toxicity of the teachers' unions is now laid bare. And I think education is just going to fall

00:02:35.800 apart because I can't see that what we know now about the teachers' unions, what we've seen about

00:02:42.120 the schools, especially during the pandemic, I think their stranglehold is in real trouble.

00:02:48.100 And I've heard, don't know if this is true, but I think you might see some big companies such as

00:02:54.700 Apple or Google getting into the education space. And if they do, that's all you need for

00:03:02.920 homeschooling. Now, when you say homeschooling, don't you imagine there's a student sitting in the

00:03:10.680 living room all bored and one of the parents has to say, you know, keep watching that screen.

00:03:15.840 Like when I think about homeschooling, it doesn't sound good, but I don't think that's the real

00:03:22.120 model. I think the real model will be people who just say, hey, you live in the neighborhood,

00:03:28.180 you do homeschooling. I do homeschooling too. Let's use the internet and get together and we'll have

00:03:34.720 our little homeschool people, you know, over at my house today and maybe over at your house tomorrow.

00:03:39.900 But it's easy to imagine a self-organized, very socially engineered system where kids don't go to

00:03:51.300 school and get bullied. Rather, they're in their own neighborhood dealing with neighbors and, you

00:03:57.840 know, there's no bullying because you've sort of selected the people in your group. Or at least

00:04:02.800 there'd be less. So I think that's one of the great things that's going to come out of this is

00:04:06.900 that the school system was exposed as the enemy of the people. And that's going to change.

00:04:14.300 I keep telling you that parody and reality have merged. But every time you hear another example of

00:04:19.440 it's, it's, it's really shocking. All right. So here's another example where try to figure out if

00:04:27.480 this really happened or if it's just a joke. All right. Did this really happen?

00:04:37.260 Was there a BBC diversity chief? You can stop right there if you want to make your own joke.

00:04:44.680 I'll get, I'll pause to let you insert your own joke. There's a BBC diversity chief. Okay. Do your 0.97

00:04:52.460 joke. Now let's go on. Who says that, uh, uh, I think it's Idris Idris Idris, Idris Elba's TV

00:04:59.520 detective, detective Luther quote, isn't black enough to be real because he doesn't have any black friends 0.95

00:05:07.720 and doesn't eat any Caribbean food. So there's that. Uh, that's what the BBC diversity chief says. 0.98

00:05:17.220 Not black enough, which is probably a big surprise to, uh, Idris or Idris Elba that he's not black 0.93

00:05:24.740 enough. But, uh, comment on that from Titania McGrath. Now, if you're not following this account, 0.88

00:05:32.320 you really need to, it's a Titania McGrath, all one word. And it's a parody account in which

00:05:42.240 somebody allegedly named Titania McGrath, who's not a real person, uh, basically agrees with stuff

00:05:49.060 in the news. And it's just hilarious because she's agreeing with, you know, the, the most ridiculous 0.90

00:05:54.940 parts of the news. And she comments on, uh, or whoever it is comments on this story in a tweet

00:06:01.840 and says, thrilled to see someone finally calling out Idris Elba for not being black enough.

00:06:07.720 Quite frankly, with all my pioneering work for social justice, I'm far blacker than Idris Elba

00:06:14.840 could ever hope to be. Now you'd have to know that her profile picture is a blonde woman. 1.00

00:06:19.160 So that, that makes it funnier. All right, here's a example two where parody and reality have merged.

00:06:29.320 You ready? Uh, is this a real story or is it, uh, a parody? That, uh, the Playboy is now featuring

00:06:38.500 a plus-sized model in their newest edition. Do you think that Playboy decided to run a plus-sized

00:06:46.320 model? Is that real? Or is that parody? Turns out it's real. Uh, David Hasselhoff's daughter,

00:06:55.540 Haley Hasselhoff, um, is the plus-sized model and she's, she's going to be Playboy feature. 0.84

00:07:04.000 Um, now we don't do fat shaming here. If I've told you once, I've told you a million times,

00:07:09.200 we don't do fat shaming. But I should point out that if the entire purpose of your magazine

00:07:15.280 is to show unnaturally good looking women, what are you doing? Now, I'm not saying that 0.99

00:07:24.300 plus-sized women should not be in magazines. I'm not saying anything like that. I'm saying 1.00

00:07:29.580 if you're a Playboy, isn't that the opposite of your brand? And can you really survive if you go

00:07:38.180 opposite your brand? I mean, didn't people look at Playboy because they liked the brand?

00:07:44.220 Now, to their defense, I would say that Playboy probably can't exist as a naked picture magazine,

00:07:52.460 even digitally, because, uh, is there anybody who doesn't have infinite access to naked pictures?

00:07:58.980 You know, it's called the internet. So Playboy doesn't have much of a purpose in terms of the,

00:08:03.460 the models. It just doesn't have any purpose anymore. So maybe they're just flailing around

00:08:08.920 to find something that works. I would like to give you the following

00:08:12.820 pun that does not come from me. So the first thing you need to know about this pun,

00:08:21.000 it wasn't from me. It was from a woman. All right? That softens it a little bit.

00:08:26.840 This came from a woman. I'm just repeating it. And it's very unkind. So you shouldn't laugh. 1.00

00:08:35.560 And what Angela says on Twitter about this Playboy having a plus size model is that it's an example 0.84

00:08:42.200 of, and I quote, fattening the curve. That's not funny. Angela, you should be ashamed of yourself. 0.99

00:08:49.540 You should be ashamed. And if any of you are laughing at fattening the curve,

00:08:55.300 you've got some work to do. Do the work. Do the work. Well, here's, uh, some of the dogs not barking

00:09:02.520 this week. Um, so these are the stories that don't exist and you don't know why. Don't know why.

00:09:12.200 There are three dogs not barking. Number one, we keep hearing more and more about Q and their stories

00:09:17.600 and the New York times about how to deprogram the Q believers and all that. And still things are very 0.99

00:09:25.800 quiet about who was behind the Q. Now, some people say, well, we know there was this documentary where

00:09:32.940 somebody said they found the guy who's behind it and he's sort of kind of, but not really admitted

00:09:37.740 it, but sort of, maybe kind of, but you're not sure. Really? This Q thing is one of the biggest

00:09:43.740 things in the country and it doesn't really matter who was behind it. I would say that matters. Now,

00:09:50.560 when I say behind it, I don't just mean the person posting because it was obviously being boosted by,

00:09:56.300 you know, whoever wanted to boost it, which was probably China and Russia, right? So things are

00:10:03.580 really quiet about who's behind the Q. And it's just so jarringly obvious that it's being ignored.

00:10:09.920 You have to ask yourself why. I don't know why, but if it's not an intel operation, I would be really

00:10:18.280 surprised. Or if Q, Q may have started as, you know, something as a prank or whatever. It may have

00:10:24.080 started as one thing, but certainly at some point it became an intelligence operation and probably not

00:10:30.060 just American, probably foreign American, who knows, maybe some combination, but we don't hear about

00:10:38.100 that. Here's another story that I haven't heard. Has anybody put together statistics on how many

00:10:45.340 citizens are killed by police when not resisting arrest? Just the category of people not resisting

00:10:54.420 arrest. Now, I'm not defending the police because if somebody is resisting arrest, that doesn't mean

00:11:00.560 you get to kill them. I'm not saying that. There's got to be a better way to do some, some things than

00:11:07.300 the way we're doing them. I completely agree with anybody who's protesting who says, why don't you get

00:11:13.020 more creative? There's got to be a better way. Totally agree with that. But how many people do get

00:11:19.540 killed when they're not resisting? I would think the only thing left would be the category of

00:11:28.340 mistakes, where somebody thought they saw a gun, but it was something else. That's probably all this

00:11:34.400 left, right? And so I would argue that we have a pandemic of, basically a pandemic in which we believe

00:11:46.320 that people are killed by police, but what we really have is a pandemic of resisting arrest.

00:11:52.820 What if it were reported that way? Suppose the media said we have a pandemic of people resisting

00:12:01.340 arrest, and the obvious outcome is that people are getting killed. It's the same story, right?

00:12:08.880 All I did was reframe it, but none of the details are different. But if you thought this was a story of

00:12:14.860 racism and cops killing black people, you feel one way about it. And if you simply have been told by 0.81

00:12:22.320 the news, forget about whether this is true or false, just see where I'm going here. If the news has

00:12:28.020 simply decided that the way to report this was to say we have this pandemic of people resisting arrest

00:12:34.880 and getting themselves killed, that easily could explain everything you see, couldn't it? But the way

00:12:42.620 you feel about it would be your hair would not be on fire. You'd be thinking, why are so many people

00:12:49.040 doing this? Like, what do we do about that? Is it really a police problem? Or they just, it puts them

00:12:56.080 in a situation where the risk is higher. And so if the police do not act perfectly, which is hard to do

00:13:02.800 in a tense situation, nobody acts perfectly all the time in complex, chaotic situations. So that's a lot to

00:13:10.760 ask of the police to not make a mistake in those situations. All right, here's another one. Where's

00:13:18.480 my one example of a citizen who wants to vote but can't figure out how to get an ID? On day one,

00:13:25.760 I was perfectly okay with no examples. On day two, I started to think, huh, it's been two days. Feels like

00:13:35.800 you could have found one person to put on the news to say, I can't figure out how to get an ID,

00:13:41.840 which would be weird because the moment the person said that, somebody would help them get an ID.

00:13:47.900 Literally the same moment. If you saw somebody on TV who said, I can't get an ID because it costs $35

00:13:55.000 or I don't know how, what would be your first impulse? Well, I'll give you $35. If somebody

00:14:01.720 would, maybe you wouldn't, but I would. Yeah, I can afford $35. If somebody came to me and said,

00:14:08.500 the only thing keeping me from voting is I can't afford to get my original birth certificate so that

00:14:16.800 I can get an ID and it would cost me $35, I'd say, oh, here you go. Problem solved. Or if they said,

00:14:25.480 I don't know where to go or how to do it, I'd say, huh, I don't either, but let me Google it.

00:14:30.420 Oh, here you go. Problem solved. Part of the reason that you can't surface anybody

00:14:36.880 is that their problem would be solved the moment they surfaced. So the one person who couldn't solve

00:14:44.840 the problem would have it solved for them immediately. Let's say a hundred people came

00:14:50.420 forward and they all said, we don't know how to do this, can't solve it. One day, all solved.

00:14:57.320 Because other people would solve it. This is one of those problems where everybody could solve this

00:15:02.820 problem. You just have to tell us who you are. It's the most non-problem ever existed in the world.

00:15:09.060 A self-solving problem. All you have to do is complain about it and it's solved.

00:15:14.840 Can you think of anything else where the only thing you have to do is complain publicly

00:15:19.800 and it gets solved? Yeah. So obviously nobody's looking to solve the problem. I think that's

00:15:29.220 clear. I am coming around to the opinion that the protesters who are protesting from everything

00:15:36.580 about George Floyd to Duante Wright, whose name I always mispronounce, I don't do it intentionally,

00:15:44.640 and I'm coming around to that opinion that there has to be a better way to handle this.

00:15:51.920 Because as soon as a confrontation starts, you've ramped up the odds of something bad happening

00:15:58.400 right through the roof. Is there a way to, let's say, deny them digital access to the world?

00:16:09.100 Let's say you know who it is. So let's say your minimum requirement is you know who the perpetrator

00:16:14.080 is. And maybe they're in a car and they're running away or they get away. But you can ID them,

00:16:20.720 either because you've got a photograph and you have, let's say, facial recognition or something.

00:16:26.460 Took the, maybe you looked at the license plate and it was the real person. So if the police know who the

00:16:32.700 person is or have a way to identify the person, let's say the driver of a car or somebody else who

00:16:39.540 they catch, but then that person runs away, isn't there a better way, a nonviolent way

00:16:46.140 to punish them from a distance? In other words, just put like a digital tag on them so that anytime

00:16:57.520 they try to sign up for Snapchat, they can't do it. I'm just brainstorming here. That might not be a

00:17:03.640 good example. Because everybody needs to live in the digital world. They need to eventually have

00:17:09.740 banking. They need to sign up for Instagram. And for all these things, you need to say what your name

00:17:16.460 is, ideally. So it feels to me that there's something we could do by, let's say, limiting

00:17:23.740 somebody's digital life until they just surrender. Until they just surrender. Now, there might be a part

00:17:34.100 two to this, which is you have to lower maybe the penalties. So there might be some things which

00:17:40.080 somebody would get arrested for that maybe we just should minimize it a little bit. So I'd look at that

00:17:47.140 as well. But I am not completely unsympathetic, and I know some of you are, to the idea that

00:17:55.220 we could defund the police. Now, it would be crazy to just defund the police if you didn't have some

00:18:02.260 substitute system you thought had a chance of making a difference. But if you took a long-term

00:18:08.920 look at it and said, what could you do to make police not necessary? Let me throw out another

00:18:15.880 idea. Instead of letting all the people with criminal records live among the people who do not,

00:18:26.240 suppose once you get a criminal record, you just have to live in the place with all the people with

00:18:31.660 criminal records. Sort of like a, you know, a prisoner island situation. Could that group of

00:18:37.920 people, where all the prisoners, or not the prisoners, the people who have some kind of

00:18:43.320 criminal record, they could just live with themselves with no police. Let them come up with

00:18:48.380 their own rules. If it's better, it's better. Now, somebody's saying prison, but I'm talking

00:18:54.380 about somebody who's already paid their debt. They just have a, let's say they have a violent

00:18:58.280 criminal record. The odds of people being a repeat offender are pretty high. If you've never had a

00:19:03.880 criminal record, your odds are low that you'll get one after a certain age, right? So I feel as if

00:19:11.560 there's, there's a segment of the population that doesn't want to live in the same place as police live

00:19:19.520 because they're natural enemies. Somebody's not going to stop committing crimes. The police are

00:19:25.060 not going to stop busting them for it. So they just shouldn't be in the same place. Just let the 0.61

00:19:30.420 people who want to be criminals live, live with other criminals. Now, I'm not saying that's a good

00:19:35.220 idea, right? If you're saying to yourself, that's a bad idea, you know, liberty, constitution, those are

00:19:43.000 all good, good counterpoints. I'm just saying that I feel as if there's a level of creativity we could

00:19:48.740 apply to this that hasn't been applied. I'm just saying, let's be creative and see what we can do

00:19:54.200 and test some things. You never know. Suppose you took one of these people who had a criminal record.

00:20:00.820 And again, this has nothing to do with race in case you're, in case you're imagining that this is a

00:20:05.980 non-racial thing. You just say, here's your, here's your deal. If you live among the people that want 0.95

00:20:12.920 police, you're going to get stopped by the police. You're going to have, you're going to get arrested.

00:20:17.360 You're going back to jail. But we'll give you the option. You could live in a non-police city.

00:20:23.920 You'll probably be killed by the people who are also criminals living there. But if you want,

00:20:30.600 it's your option to have no police. So it'd have to be optional. I think that would be the main

00:20:35.820 point. All right. So here's some reframings. I'm going to give you some, several examples of how

00:20:43.500 to take things that are in the news and just look at them differently, just by reframing them.

00:20:49.360 Number one, there's a doctor who's got lots of credentials in her bio. So some doctor, 1.00

00:20:59.000 Celine Gounder, is talking about Ney Silver's, I guess Ney Silver had tweeted about some things

00:21:05.660 about the coronavirus, et cetera. And she tweets with all due respect to Nate Silver. He is not an

00:21:13.840 expert on the psychology of vaccine confidence. He is a poll aggregator and a political pundit.

00:21:20.480 He is not an infectious disease specialist, epidemiologist, vaccinologist, virologist,

00:21:26.820 immunologist, or behavioral scientist. So there. Do you know who else is not those things?

00:21:36.640 Everybody. I think, I think she just described everybody on earth. There's nobody who is all

00:21:44.320 these things. So should everybody just shut up unless they have mastered all these domains?

00:21:49.740 Well, let me reframe this the way James Suriwiki did in a responding tweet. He said,

00:22:00.880 it is ridiculous to say Ney Silver is not qualified to speak about how a government action might shape

00:22:06.600 public opinion or on the types of messaging around issues of risk and reward that are likely to be

00:22:11.700 effective. And as James says, that is his lane. The, the people who know risk management are the only

00:22:22.380 people who should be talking. Let me say that again. Nate Silver is one of the few people in the world

00:22:30.180 who has earned the right to talk about anything because he can do math. He understands risk management

00:22:39.760 and puts things in that context consistently. He has a good, you know, track record of, you know,

00:22:46.260 showing him he's mastered his, his field. I would say that anybody who is any of these things,

00:22:54.500 like a disease specialist, a virologist, immunologist, any of those people, they should shut up

00:23:02.400 and they should talk to Nate Silver. I'm not serious, but to make the point, they should talk to

00:23:09.580 him and then all the other people should talk to Nate Silver and then Nate Silver should tell us what

00:23:14.860 the risk management looks like once he's collected the opinions of the experts. Now that's what a

00:23:20.740 leader does, right? A leader who knows risk management does. A bad leader would not. You know, they would

00:23:27.160 just take the political route. But this framing of Nate Silver as exactly the wrong person to be

00:23:34.720 talking about it is completely upside down. He's the only person I would listen to if I have a choice

00:23:41.500 because he understands risk management. All of these experts, they kind of know what they read

00:23:47.640 from other experts. And if they can sum up their opinions, I do want a Nate Silver to tell me what

00:23:53.600 to think about it. Now I'll make up my own opinion, obviously, but I want the risk management of people

00:23:58.960 to be talking. I don't want some freaking siloed immunologist person who doesn't understand 0.94

00:24:05.540 anything except their field. I don't care about that. So the reframing here is that the risk 0.96

00:24:11.500 management people are the only people who should be talking in public. Because if you can't frame

00:24:16.300 things in terms of risk management, you are doing propaganda. Risk management is the opposite

00:24:24.880 of propaganda. Anything that leaves it down is either by intention or design or accident propaganda.

00:24:34.720 So there's your first reframing. All right, here's another one.

00:24:41.300 On the issue of voter IDs, is voter ID racist? Well, this is a reframing from, you should know

00:24:48.800 because the story requires it. A black man who is Mark Keith Robinson, lieutenant governor of North

00:24:56.300 Carolina. Now, because he's black, he gets to say this. You know, you and I maybe can't, 0.71

00:25:02.900 depending on what color you are. And he says, quote, I categorically reject the notion that a people

00:25:10.240 who were strong enough to survive and overcome the horrors of slavery and the violent bigotry of Jim

00:25:16.240 Crow are now too weak to obtain a free ID to protect the integrity of their vote.

00:25:24.820 That's really good. As reframings go, this is as good as you get. So Mark Keith Robinson,

00:25:31.960 I don't know anything about him, except he's a lieutenant governor. But if this is the kind of

00:25:36.840 game he can bring to other topics, maybe we're going to see more of Mark Keith Robinson.

00:25:43.120 Because I would like to see more of this, you know, if I could, you know, safely extrapolate from

00:25:50.500 one opinion. This is a good reframe. And what did I tell you is the important thing here is that

00:25:57.720 responsibility is the person's, not society's to fix you. And he framed that perfectly. That

00:26:04.540 you're basically calling black people, what, if the one thing they can't do is get an ID,

00:26:13.340 which everybody can do? It feels racist, right? It feels racist to me to say that black people

00:26:21.800 can't figure out how to get IDs. I don't know how you could see it any other way but racist. All right. 0.94

00:26:27.260 I told you about the resisting arrest epidemic as opposed to the police killing people epidemic.

00:26:34.020 That's a better reframe. And accurate too. The thing with a reframe is I don't try to sell you any

00:26:39.780 reframe that doesn't make things more clear. Like I'm not going to reframe things to make them more

00:26:46.060 propaganda unless I'm doing it for fun. But yeah, I guess sometimes I might do that to influence.

00:26:53.980 I guess you could call that propaganda. So I'll take that back. I think probably sometimes I do

00:26:58.700 reframe for influence, but I never do it for bad intentions, right? It's usually to make things

00:27:04.700 clear, not the opposite. We know now from James O'Keefe and his secret videos he's got. If you haven't

00:27:14.660 seen this, you got to see this. You have to see the newest video from Project Veritas. And you

00:27:23.100 probably are only going to be able to see it on their website. So, because I think it's probably

00:27:29.040 suppressed everywhere else. But they got a technical director at CNN on camera saying that, first of all,

00:27:37.820 he admitted that the network engaged in propaganda. He actually used that word to remove Trump from

00:27:44.180 presidency. And he said, quote, our focus was to get Trump out of office. And he said, I came to CNN

00:27:50.340 because I wanted to be part of that. So actual CNN employee, who's a technical director, so that must be,

00:27:58.740 you know, at least a fairly management kind of a job. And he's saying it directly. And he's not, it's on

00:28:09.460 Twitter, somebody's saying, so just, just Google James O'Keefe and CNN propaganda, it'll probably pop

00:28:16.740 up. And then more of it talked about how they were planning to, after the pandemic's over, CNN was

00:28:23.620 going to shift its focus to scaring you about climate change. And then today we see that the word climate,

00:28:31.180 the words climate emergency are going to be used by some other media. They're saying, well, we're going

00:28:36.960 to call it a climate emergency from now on, as opposed to climate change. Is that propaganda?

00:28:45.820 Yes, it is. Because if you change the word, so that the word itself is a message, you've left out

00:28:54.220 the reasons. If you give me the reasons, that's an argument. But if you try to pack the reasons into a

00:29:00.040 word, and you're trying to get me to just accept the word, independent of the reasons that went into it,

00:29:06.960 it's kind of an end run around reason, isn't it? So I'm going to call that a reframe. That's a

00:29:15.180 potentially bad one. Now, if you think that the climate is an emergency, you would say this is

00:29:21.740 a good reframe, because it gets people to be more serious about something that's serious. So this one's

00:29:27.980 more of a, an opinion one, but there's no doubt that it's propaganda. You just don't know if it's

00:29:34.140 productive propaganda. Because there's good propaganda and bad, right? We're all brainwashed

00:29:40.940 all the time. Some of it's good for us. Some of it's not. How about critical race theory? I was

00:29:50.080 reading an article from a teacher who's at a private school who got in trouble for criticizing critical

00:29:56.140 race theory. And when you hear about the details of it, it's basically just racism. Not even just

00:30:07.260 basically, it's just racism. So they're actually teaching kids to be racists under the guise of

00:30:13.380 doing the opposite. And I don't think that's an unfair characterization. Because the details of it are

00:30:21.360 that you're supposed to see each other in terms of your race, and act that way, somehow.

00:30:28.480 And that is racism. That's not, I'm not just using hyperbole. That is literally the definition

00:30:35.560 of racism. Treating people differently based on race. Now, of course, they would say they have good

00:30:41.280 intentions. But do you care? Do you care that they have good intentions, when it's still just racism?

00:30:49.440 I think you shouldn't care about that. Because racism with good intentions is Nazi Germany. 0.79

00:30:58.040 Because the Nazis had good intentions for the Nazis. They just had bad intentions for other people.

00:31:04.400 Or didn't care. Here's how I would reframe critical race theory. I would call it state-mandated racism.

00:31:12.500 So critical race theory looks to replace, this would be its stated intention, individual racism in

00:31:22.480 students. They're replacing individual racism with state-mandated racism. Because this CRT stuff is

00:31:31.140 sort of mandated at this point. How does that reframe? It's state-mandated racism.

00:31:37.400 And it's completely supportable by their own description of what it is. You don't even have

00:31:43.820 to change the description. Just say, here's what they say it is. This is them telling you what

00:31:49.320 it is. State-sponsored racism. Now, I don't think that's an effective reframe, but it's an accurate

00:31:57.420 one. Here's some more.

00:31:59.820 I think critical race theory causes brain damage. Not hyperbole, not an exaggeration, not speaking

00:32:11.320 figuratively. I think it literally causes brain damage. Now, of course, as we get smarter about

00:32:19.700 what brains are and how brains work, everything is brain damage if it's not good for you. Right?

00:32:26.400 So, yeah, pretty much your cell phone and everything else is causing brain damage.

00:32:32.060 But I think this is. And here's specifically why. It's teaching kids a form of learned helplessness.

00:32:40.480 And that is, number one, child abuse, in my opinion. I think it's child abuse to say that your problems

00:32:48.920 are caused by other people. And that your success will be limited by the opinions of other people.

00:32:55.360 Is it true? Totally. It's totally true. Your success will be influenced by racism. Mine was.

00:33:03.520 I told you I lost two careers. Three, really. Three careers to racism. So, yeah, racism really does

00:33:10.360 affect you. But if you teach the kids that message, that they're victims of it as opposed to agents of

00:33:19.380 their own life, you know, that they have control of their life, they have problems in life. Racism is one

00:33:26.520 of them. It's a big one. But they have strategies where they can slice through it like a hot poker

00:33:32.000 through butter, if they use the right strategies. Now, compare these two messages. Your life will be

00:33:38.420 determined by racism, which I think critical race theory is telling them, versus there are a lot of

00:33:44.300 problems in the world, but we're going to teach you how to get over them. One of them is good for your brain

00:33:50.300 and your life, and the other gives you brain damage. Telling people that they're helpless to racism, I think,

00:33:57.280 is brain damage and a form of child abuse. And that's my real opinion, by the way, in case you're wondering if I'm

00:34:03.400 just trying to make an argument or something. That's a genuine, real opinion, that it causes brain damage.

00:34:08.940 Here's another reframe. We have lots of fact-checkers in the world, and I appreciate them, even when I

00:34:15.960 disagree with them. I do think it's really useful that there are fact-checking organizations.

00:34:22.200 Even when so many times I think they get it wrong, it's better that they exist than not. And if you have

00:34:29.180 more than one fact-checking organization, you have a little bit of hope that one of them will get it

00:34:33.380 right, and you can spot that. But here's what we really need. Propaganda checkers.

00:34:41.540 That's what we need. We need propaganda checkers.

00:34:46.520 I'm going to pause for a moment, because something just happened in your head, didn't it?

00:34:50.820 When I said that, you just said to yourself, 0.99

00:34:53.240 holy shit, we could do that. Completely doable. It's just a website with calling out what is 0.99

00:35:01.440 propaganda and what is objective. It's easy. Somebody just looked at the headlines, say,

00:35:08.660 oh, that one's propaganda. Now, it would have to be somebody with some credentials.

00:35:12.320 Much like the fact-checkers require people who are good at researching and fact-checking.

00:35:16.440 So there are people who are good at propaganda spotting. Me, for example. I could do a propaganda

00:35:24.600 checking website if I had nothing else to do. Just start a website, take each headline, say,

00:35:31.660 okay, they use this word, that's propaganda. Now, remember, propaganda doesn't mean bad for you.

00:35:41.120 It just means they're not trying to let you make up your own mind. All right, let me give you an

00:35:45.300 example of propaganda that's good for you. Patriotism. Patriotism. Pledge of Allegiance.

00:35:53.320 It's propaganda. It's brainwashing. It just happens to be good for the country, to get everybody on

00:36:00.360 the same side, especially children. So we do brainwash children like crazy. It just happens to be better

00:36:06.940 than not. So I wouldn't even say that the propaganda is always bad, but you should call it out and say what

00:36:13.280 it is. Now, isn't all communications propaganda? No. No, it is not. You can make an argument that

00:36:22.160 everything has, you know, two percent of propaganda in it. I could see that. But the difference in

00:36:28.380 level is so extreme that that's worth calling out. But you are right that once it gets down to the

00:36:35.320 the more subtle cases, it's sort of an opinion. All right. But certainly the CNN moving from climate

00:36:44.400 change to climate emergency, assuming that's what they go to, looks like the mainstream is going to

00:36:50.540 go to that. That's propaganda. But if I were the propaganda checker, I would say, okay, this is

00:36:57.160 propaganda, but it might be good for you. If they're right, right? If they're right about climate

00:37:02.780 change and how dangerous it is, calling it an emergency is good for you. Right? So propaganda

00:37:09.640 doesn't mean it's bad for you. That's, I guess I said that too many times. All right, here's another,

00:37:14.100 here's another one. All right, well, never mind that. I'm going to skip this one. So it looks like

00:37:23.120 Putin and Biden are in a manly man dick measuring contest. And I guess Putin warned Biden against 0.99

00:37:33.140 putting any war ships, you know, anywhere near the Ukraine situation, where I guess Russia has

00:37:39.480 amassed forces on the border of Ukraine. And we all expect them to invade and conquer and hold the 0.91

00:37:47.080 Russian, the Russian language portion of that area, Crimea and Ukraine. It looks like Russia is just 0.90

00:37:55.440 going to grab it and keep it. And he warned Biden to keep his warships out for your own good,

00:38:03.060 for their own good. And Biden came back and says, he warned Putin that he should, you know,

00:38:12.220 stay cool for his own good. So now they've both given each other a mafia-like warning. It's like,

00:38:20.020 you might want to stay out of this area for your own good. Now, what was the, was that useful?

00:38:29.120 If this were Trump, would this be happening? Do you think that Putin would be acting the same

00:38:36.500 if Trump were president? Because remember, everybody said Trump's best friends with Putin,

00:38:44.140 right? So wouldn't Putin do the same thing? Because he wouldn't be worried about Trump

00:38:49.180 because they're best friends, according to the mainstream media.

00:38:54.080 But Trump had one thing that was sort of a superpower, wasn't it? You could not predict

00:39:01.020 what the hell that guy was going to do. You couldn't predict. What about Biden? Is Biden

00:39:07.820 predictable? Yes, he is. Did Trump tell us that being unpredictable would be like an extra power?

00:39:16.960 Yes, he did. Often. Did we see it in practice? Yes, we did. Because he acted unpredictably.

00:39:25.880 You know, he dropped the mother of all bombs. He bombed that Syrian airport, even though there 0.99

00:39:30.240 were Russian troops there. He simply made sure you knew that you didn't know what the hell he was

00:39:35.580 going to do next, which is really, really scary, right? Biden is not scary, because you do think

00:39:44.180 he's going to warn you, and you do think he's going to act predictable. What happens when somebody

00:39:49.120 who's a chess player like Putin is presented with an unpredictable situation? He waits until it's

00:39:57.360 predictable. What happens when he's presented with a predictable situation? Well, then it's chess time.

00:40:05.200 And who's going to be better at chess? You know, I would say that Putin has the home field advantage

00:40:10.620 over there. I feel like he wins at chess. He wouldn't win if he had to hold off and wait for

00:40:17.880 things to clarify. And that was what Trump offered, I think. All right. If you were to predict where this

00:40:25.940 is going to go, I have a sort of a general question. Is it possible for a superpower to deter any other

00:40:32.820 superpower if the superpower is going after a smaller nation? And I think not. I think that if you had to

00:40:40.740 guess what the future looks like, it will be China does own Taiwan eventually. Russia does own the 0.82

00:40:50.720 Russian-speaking portions of Ukraine eventually. There's nothing that can stop them. Because I don't 1.00

00:40:58.620 see that a superpower is going to go to war over another country. I just don't. And it seems to me

00:41:06.920 that the superpowers will probably just consolidate control over neighboring countries just for security

00:41:14.000 reasons. Now, here's my question. Why is it that Russia wants to control this part of the world? 0.84

00:41:21.360 What's in it for Russia to conquer and hold territory in Ukraine? Now, of course, the story is 0.83

00:41:28.640 that there are Russian-speaking people who just want to be conquered and be part of Russia. Nobody 0.77

00:41:33.900 really believes that, right? Nobody believes that it's about, you know, nationalism or Russian-speaking

00:41:40.760 or anything. That's just sort of the story. Somebody says gas lines, but I don't think so.

00:41:46.900 Because that would just be one little part of the world. You know, you'd still need to get your gas

00:41:51.440 line to where you need it to go. Access to the Black Sea, but not the parts that they're trying to

00:42:01.780 conquer, right? Do you think that they're just going to try to conquer stuff till they get to the ocean?

00:42:06.780 So here's what I'm wondering. Why does anybody want to deny Russia the ability to, A, defend

00:42:20.080 themselves? They have nuclear weapons, so helping them defend themselves a little bit better doesn't

00:42:27.560 seem like it would make any difference to the United States, does it? Because we could destroy Russia 0.98

00:42:33.900 a thousand times over with nukes. So if they're a little bit more secure, let's say they conquered

00:42:40.440 some buffer territory, do we care? I feel as if we could make some places less conquerable by simply

00:42:52.540 not being a threat. And I just don't even know what Putin gets from conquering this little bit of real 0.72

00:42:59.980 state. And I don't think I'll ever find it in the news. So maybe if anybody knows, let me know. I mean,

00:43:05.740 I see your guesses. But here's my larger point. I believe that the way Trump got what I would call

00:43:13.160 a good result in North Korea is that he took away the reason for North Korea to be at war with the

00:43:19.480 United States. He just took away the reason. Why can't we do that with Ukraine, Taiwan, etc.? Can't we take

00:43:28.400 away the reason? I feel like we could. Now, in the case of China and Taiwan, or whatever the real name is

00:43:36.480 for Taiwan, in that case, I think there's a sort of a national ego involved. So maybe there's nothing you can do

00:43:45.440 about that one. But I do think that the superpower should not be conquering countries for their own

00:43:52.400 safety. If that's really the reason, that shouldn't be a thing. And I don't think that anything should

00:43:58.720 stop any country from producing gas or anything in a competitive environment, so long as we're not

00:44:06.640 victims of it in a monopoly sense. All right, let's talk about, there's a Rasmussen poll results.

00:44:16.740 They asked this question, how likely is it that cheating affected the outcome of the 2020

00:44:20.580 presidential election? Now, you know that this is going to be by party lines, right? So they added

00:44:26.440 together the people who said it's very likely that cheating affected the race, and the somewhat

00:44:32.260 likelies, for a total likely. Democrats, 30% of them, 30% of Democrats were willing to say that it's

00:44:44.980 at least somewhat likely that the election was changed by cheating. 30%. That's way more than I

00:44:53.180 thought. Then unaffiliated, about half of them, and Republicans, as you might expect, 74% of them.

00:45:01.080 Now, again, you get this 74% thing, and I always ask, who's the other 25%? Who are these people?

00:45:10.220 And I have a hypothesis that 25% will interpret a polling question differently than the other 75%,

00:45:20.940 somewhat consistently. So the question was, do you feel the cheating affected the outcome?

00:45:28.540 Who are the 25% of Republicans who think no?

00:45:37.680 It's hard to be a Republican and think no.

00:45:39.760 But of all voters, 51%. Now, if 51% of voters, especially if a third of them Democrats, think that

00:45:50.380 there's this high chance of something, shouldn't we be working a little bit harder for transparency

00:45:55.820 on the next one? And you don't really see it, do you? I see no effort by anybody to make the next

00:46:03.840 election more transparent, or even to have a full audit of what we have. So that's something.

00:46:11.960 So there's a website that purports to collect all of the studies of various chemicals that were used

00:46:20.560 for early treatment of COVID. And this website is not what I would call a credible website,

00:46:28.560 but I'll just alert you to it anyway. It says C19, the letter C, 19early.com, in case you want to take

00:46:37.480 a look at it. C, letter C, 19early.com. And what they did is take all the different studies of the

00:46:45.180 various chemicals that have been tried and took an average of how much they helped based on those

00:46:52.680 studies. Now, number one, can you take an average of studies? Is that something you can really do?

00:47:00.160 Well, I'm not statistically competent enough to say when that can be done, because there are times

00:47:05.700 you do embedded studies and you do exactly that. And people do consider that useful. But there have

00:47:11.160 to be other times when just grabbing a bunch of things that studied things differently and taking an

00:47:17.040 average might not be the best thing to do. So I don't know if it is in this case. But let me tell you

00:47:22.200 the results that they got when they sort of averaged the studies, multiple studies. At the top of the

00:47:30.100 list, the thing that helped the most, if you got it early, 91% improvement, I guess. Again, this is low

00:47:37.640 credibility reporting here, so don't take any of this as true, is something called proxalutamide. So of all

00:47:46.140 the things from vitamin D to zinc to hydroxychloroquine to remdesivir, ivermectin, they're all in

00:47:52.160 the list, and I'll mention them in a minute. But the number one one is one I've never heard of.

00:47:58.940 Have you heard of this one? I assume if you're a medical doctor, you know what it is. But I've

00:48:04.520 never heard of proxalutamide. Is it true that it's 91% effective if you get it early? What the hell

00:48:13.180 is it? Here's number two, bromhexine. What? And apparently that's like, you know, hugely effective

00:48:22.300 according to this non-credible grouping of studies. Number three, povidine iodine.

00:48:30.500 What? What the hell is it? And you have to get to number four before you get one you've even heard

00:48:38.060 of, ivermectin. Now, this claims a 76% improvement. Who knows? Then you go further down the list,

00:48:44.960 there are a number of chemicals, and you get down to 62% effectiveness. And again, I'm not saying any of

00:48:50.760 this is incredible. I'm just reporting what is reported, that vitamin D is 62% effective. I have

00:48:58.040 a real question on that, because I think probably the studies only showed that people with vitamin D

00:49:04.360 have better outcomes. I don't think it showed that if you gave them vitamin D, you know, like just a

00:49:10.780 pill, a regular pill of vitamin D. I don't think that's what anybody studied, but I could be wrong.

00:49:16.160 And then we get down toward lower on the list. Zinc, allegedly 37% effective. Hydroxychloroquine,

00:49:25.380 allegedly 26% effective. And at the very bottom, remdesivir. Oh, and vitamin C, I guess, is even

00:49:34.460 lower. But remdesivir, basically 26%. Now, don't believe any of these numbers. But the question I

00:49:42.420 ask is, if zinc is 37% by itself, and hydroxychlorine is 26% by itself, and vitamin D is

00:49:51.700 62% by itself, what happens if you take all three? Or what happens if you take any combination of these

00:50:00.580 that work on different mechanisms? You know, you wouldn't, you'd have to be careful what your

00:50:05.400 combination was, I guess. But I feel like there's some combination of these, you know, if science

00:50:12.360 studied them, maybe they'd find out that makes a difference. Who knows?

00:50:21.340 Oh, somebody says, Brett Weinstein said he would take ivermectin based on his own looking and reading

00:50:26.580 of the research. Now, he would be more qualified than most people to read research and make a decision.

00:50:32.080 But again, people are going to have different opinions. So none of these drugs make anybody

00:50:38.680 much money, except remdesivir that we heard a lot about. But it doesn't seem that effective

00:50:43.260 for the early use. Might be better for late use. Here's an interesting little thing for you to try.

00:50:51.820 Well, in a moment. Oh, let's do this. So Luke Rudkowski points out, try searching for the term

00:51:01.840 riots today. Just two words. Search for riots today, and then use two different search engines. One,

00:51:10.040 duck, duck, go, and then do the same search on Google. Do you think you'll get a different result?

00:51:16.060 Well, as you might expect, the word riot, if you do it on Google, gets softened to protest

00:51:24.280 if they're left-leaning events. And it gets turned into riot, just like the search term,

00:51:31.680 if it's a right-leaning event. And once you see it side by side, you would think, well,

00:51:38.000 a search engine is just going to look for words, right? It's not doing any thinking.

00:51:41.520 It's just a search engine. So they should be very similar. Nope. One scrubs the word riot

00:51:49.880 and turns it into protest, and one keeps riot as riot. And when you see it side by side,

00:51:57.020 it's just shocking. There's a story that the Capitol Police, they have this agency's civil

00:52:06.620 disturbance unit. So they specialize in handling the large group of protesters. And apparently

00:52:12.020 they were not allowed to use their most powerful tools and techniques against the crowd that

00:52:18.300 marched on the Capitol. Now, is that a story? Because don't you think it was probably a good

00:52:27.520 decision not to use their most powerful tools and techniques? Because when we're talking about all

00:52:34.140 these police actions and people dying in, you know, for being stopped for warrants and stuff,

00:52:40.820 they shouldn't end in your death. But the call is to get the police to be less violent.

00:52:50.920 Isn't this the right thing? I feel as if that was the right decision to not use their most effective

00:52:57.700 tools. Because I do think it's better that the crowd got a little, you know, they got farther

00:53:03.800 than they should have. But probably those, the officials may have played it right. Because the

00:53:11.160 perfect mix is that they don't get to the, you know, they don't get to the actual politicians.

00:53:17.580 And there was somebody willing to shoot somebody to stop that from happening. I think they would

00:53:21.920 have shot more people if anybody had been closer to the actual elected professionals.

00:53:26.380 At the same time, there could have been a greater loss of life if this civil disturbance unit had

00:53:35.240 been authorized to use more dangerous methods. So I feel like it's a weird story that they're

00:53:43.340 reporting on a complete failure. But I'm looking at all the same details, and I see a success,

00:53:48.980 like a really good one. Because I feel like the least harmful thing to do would be to let them in

00:53:57.800 to the unoccupied parts, keep the temperature down, which is what the professionals did, and have a

00:54:06.340 not screwing around wall between the protesters and the actual people they're protecting. So I'm in favor

00:54:15.860 of the guy who shot the woman who came through the window. I don't think he should be charged. Because if you're

00:54:23.360 going to take this agency's civil disturbance unit and tell them they can't use, you know, the more aggressive

00:54:30.360 things, that does mean you have made a decision to let that crowd get right up to the elected professionals. And if the

00:54:39.320 guy who did the shooting was felt he was sort of the last line between the elected officials and the

00:54:47.000 protesters, that was a good shoot. Somebody says no warning shot. That's a fair statement. That's a fair 1.00

00:54:56.440 statement. But I don't know if he had time. Because if she'd gotten through, I don't know the warning shot

00:55:03.900 could have helped much. So I think that was a judgment call. I mean, you don't always have time

00:55:10.460 for a warning shot. He probably yelled a warning. And it's not like anybody didn't know this was

00:55:15.540 dangerous, right? Did you have to know that you could get shot if you break through a window in

00:55:20.100 the Capitol? Who didn't know that? All right, let's talk about propaganda. Here's more on the Matt

00:55:28.000 Gates story. Now what's interesting about this story is that as time goes by, there have been many

00:55:34.600 allegations, but they all have the same quality. They're not supported. And the longer we go without

00:55:43.640 any of these allegations being supported by something that you and I can actually see and we know the

00:55:49.720 details of, it's disturbing. Now, remember, I defend the process and the system when it's worth

00:55:58.720 defending. I don't defend the people. So Matt Gates is on his own. He has to be on his own to defend

00:56:05.320 himself. That's not my job. Like, I don't want to defend him. You can if you want, but I don't want

00:56:11.060 to. But we should talk about the system. So there's a story today, one of the big publications, I don't

00:56:18.220 know who it was, New York Times or somebody. So somebody's reporting that they saw him at a party

00:56:23.440 in which there were women there. They were all legal age, as far as anybody could tell. No, no report

00:56:30.140 of him being at any kind of an event with anybody under 18. And somebody reported and it made it into

00:56:37.260 a story that somebody saw him taking pills that could have been recreational. Is that fair? That's

00:56:46.560 actually reported in the news. That somebody saw him take some pills that somebody else thought

00:56:52.720 might have been recreational? I don't feel like that should be in a story. Might have been? Do you

00:57:00.760 know what kind of pills might have been something else? All of them. That's every pill.

00:57:05.160 There's no evidence that he directly paid anyone for sex, but there's all this suspicion. You know,

00:57:15.940 there's the other guy who might have, there might have been money for travel and hotels, but is that

00:57:21.200 paying for sex? I don't know. Then there's a suggestion that Matt Gaetz might have been provided women

00:57:30.000 by, you know, whoever might be trying to influence him or blackmail him. To which I say, can't Matt Gaetz

00:57:37.980 get as many women as he wanted? I mean, he's engaged now, but does anybody suggest that Matt Gaetz

00:57:44.100 had trouble getting women and that he would be influenced because somebody, you know, got him a 0.98

00:57:49.960 hooker? If that ever happened, there's no evidence that that happened, that that looks good.

00:57:55.220 So I'm not sure any of this quite, quite reaches the level at which we should be reporting it.

00:58:05.680 Now, if any of these things get confirmed, I suppose that's worth reporting. But it's just so creepy

00:58:12.800 that it's, it's if he did this and he might've done this and could have done this. That's just

00:58:19.640 everybody. Everybody could have taken a drug and maybe they did. Everybody might've done something

00:58:26.100 bad, but we'd like to see some evidence. And I would also add like this. So the big, the big

00:58:33.700 conversation about the Matt Gaetz story is whether money was ever involved in his relationships

00:58:40.720 with women. To which I say, it's always involved. Money's never not involved in relationships.

00:58:52.580 In the specific case where one person has a lot of it or more of it, and one person doesn't have

00:58:59.420 much. And the reporting is that these were relationships with Gaetz who had money and women

00:59:06.100 who were younger especially and did not. There are no, there are no situations where a man

00:59:14.100 with a lot of money gets into any kind of conduct with a woman who has none or little and there

00:59:22.400 isn't a transfer of money for something. It's, it's, it's just the most universal mechanism

00:59:31.100 in the world. Now, somebody says gold diggers. So who doesn't like money? Raise your hands if you

00:59:42.120 don't like money. To me, it just seems the most biologically normal thing in the world that people

00:59:51.300 who have money share it with people who don't and that there's a reciprocal benefit in that. So just the

00:59:58.040 fact that we're talking about it, it's just weird. It's like we don't even understand how life works.

01:00:03.880 All right. There's more news about Q believers and how to reprogram them. Apparently, 1.00

01:00:12.320 there's, there's an effort to try to reprogram the Q believers. And one of the things that the experts 1.00

01:00:18.960 say doesn't work is to tell them that they're stupid and wrong. You could have talked to me, 1.00

01:00:25.780 I think I could have told you that you don't really change people's mind by telling them 1.00

01:00:30.660 they're stupid and wrong. You could try has never worked in the history of the world. 0.99

01:00:35.920 So the question is, um, what makes Q so sticky and how do you deprogram them? If you think you

01:00:44.640 should, I would like to add one thing to the, what makes it sticky. And this is an observation I made

01:00:51.740 when the internet was brand new. When the internet was new, the, the guiding assumption was that this

01:00:58.260 would be a way to push information to people who wanted information. And I said early on, that's not

01:01:06.360 how people work. Yeah. I mean, there'll be plenty of that information that people want to get it from

01:01:11.800 the internet. But I said early on, because to me as a student of persuasion and the mind that the far

01:01:20.180 larger effect would be giving people a way to talk so that the internet is driven mostly by talking and

01:01:30.040 not listening. Listening is real good. Listening, meaning your research, you get some information,

01:01:34.980 right? So it's very good for that, but that's not what drives it. That's not that the passionate part.

01:01:40.460 That's not the part that makes you sign on every day. The part that does that is you being heard.

01:01:47.680 So you being heard is really, really powerful. You being somebody who consumes information is just a

01:01:57.780 passive process. So the thing that Q did accidentally right, or was it accidental? We don't know, but it would

01:02:05.520 be quite amazing if somebody had figured this out in advance. But what it did was it empowered

01:02:10.080 everybody to be a little bit of a star. So it also had the lottery effect to it. The lottery effect

01:02:18.780 is, well, it's not likely, but I could hit the lottery. In this case, if you were a Q researcher,

01:02:26.260 it wasn't likely that you were going to be the one who finally put all the pieces together and

01:02:31.720 solved the big conspiracy and outed the deep state. But it was possible. You could. You might be the one

01:02:41.240 who finally put the pieces together. Other people were doing it. It looked like they were making some

01:02:46.880 progress, or at least as far as you could tell. And so you thought, maybe I could. So it's not just that

01:02:52.940 I could be heard, but I could change the world. Have I told you, it's actually in, I think one or two of my books

01:03:00.160 mentions this point. That one of the tricks I do to keep myself interested in life, and keep my energy up,

01:03:08.200 is I always have at least one, usually more, at least one project that could change the world.

01:03:14.960 Now, the odds of me doing anything that changes the world are low, right? But even though the odds

01:03:23.860 are low, the potential benefit is so large that it's still motivating. And some of you have done the

01:03:32.520 story about telehealth over state lines. I was part of making that happen. So there have been cases

01:03:39.700 where I have changed the world. Objectively, you watched it with your own eyes. You saw me suggest

01:03:47.460 telehealth be allowed over state lines during the pandemic. You saw the president get the idea. You

01:03:53.300 saw him do an executive order. And now telehealth is everywhere. So it is not crazy to think that one

01:04:01.460 person can come up with the thing that put the parts together. It does happen. And people have seen

01:04:06.820 plenty of examples of it. Greta Thunberg, perfect example of one person who can make a difference. 0.99

01:04:13.680 So Q has that going for it, and had that going for it. So that's pretty powerful.

01:04:22.100 It also, Q also has the wonderful benefit of making you belong to something that seems important,

01:04:31.200 no matter how weird you are, right? Q was the most, what would be the word? Certainly anti-racist,

01:04:42.080 but the least bigoted, least discriminatory process of all time. Was there anybody who said,

01:04:51.060 you can't be in Q if you're black? No. No. Was there anybody who said, you can't be in Q if you're a 0.87

01:04:59.220 woman? No. Can you not be in Q if you lean left? Nope. Nope. You could be in Q no matter how weird you

01:05:10.960 were, and you could be sure that nobody else in Q would call you out for being weird. I mean, I'm sure

01:05:17.140 it happened on message boards and stuff, but it would be trivial. You could be as weird as you wanted,

01:05:22.360 and I use weird in a good way, all right? So when I say weird, that's not a negative, because I like to

01:05:28.800 be weird too, right? So different. Let's just say different. So Q really had the whole package.

01:05:36.680 It had mystery. It had something you could do. Have I told you that if somebody can get you to

01:05:42.340 physically do something, it binds you to them? So that's why when I would do a presentation back in

01:05:48.580 my corporate days, I would hand out Tic Tacs, or I would ask a question that caused them to raise

01:05:54.220 their hands. Because the first thing you want to do if you're trying to influence people is get them

01:05:59.140 to do something physically. And Q got them to do their own research. So if you were to study,

01:06:06.600 you know, persuasion and what moves people, Q had the whole package. I mean, Q didn't leave

01:06:15.120 anything on the table. Accidentally, I think. Like, I don't think somebody thought this up in advance

01:06:20.960 and said, if we put together these elements, it'll be the strongest thing anybody's ever seen.

01:06:25.900 But they did end up that way. It ended up that way. Here's another benefit. Q gives you the illusion

01:06:36.100 of understanding the world for the first time. How exciting is it to think that you'd finally

01:06:43.100 understood the world? Really exciting. That's a pretty big payoff. And Q offered that. Somebody

01:06:51.880 coined the phrase, conspirituality, meaning that Q filled some need that people just automatically,

01:07:02.700 biologically have for something like spiritualism or something like a religion. And that the thought

01:07:09.120 is the Q sort of filled that for some people. I'm a little less persuaded by that because I think

01:07:14.940 most of these people had a religion already. Here's a question for you. Wouldn't it be easy to deprogram

01:07:24.600 Q if the major media kept a running list of all the predictions and then reported the outcomes as they

01:07:32.840 happened? Wouldn't that take care of it? Now, in the beginning, you could argue, oh, we're not sure if

01:07:41.620 the predictions are panning out or not, but we think they look good. But at this point, you could just

01:07:48.200 list all of the Q predictions and you could just fact check them. And then every time there was a Q

01:07:54.040 supporter, you say, hey, here's a link. Boom. Go to here. Now, I do believe that individuals have made

01:08:01.400 these lists, people trying to argue with other people online. But has CNN ever presented the Daniel

01:08:09.540 Dale fact-checked list of every Q prediction and every result? Wouldn't that be obvious? Because CNN

01:08:19.060 would like to deprogram Q. And the biggest reason is because it's not accurate. And they've got a

01:08:26.180 they've got a fact checker. He's on the payroll. He could probably work through that Q stuff in one

01:08:33.060 afternoon. And then it would be a permanent page. And every person who had a Q addiction, 0.61

01:08:38.840 you just send them to the page and you just step out of it. Because like I said, calling people stupid 0.99

01:08:44.700 or misinformed never works. People have to talk themselves out of this sort of thing. You just need 0.98

01:08:50.360 to give them time and space to do it. So you just say, you know, you follow Q. Q's made a lot of

01:08:58.000 predictions. How'd they do? And then just step out. That's all. But you do not see CNN or any of the

01:09:07.420 mainstream media doing that list to try to program the Q people. Do you know why? Probably because they 1.00

01:09:14.960 don't want to. I think the only reason is they don't want to debunk it. Debunk it. Or let me say

01:09:22.920 it better. They don't want to debunk it effectively. The best place for CNN to be profit wise is to

01:09:31.040 debunk it in a way that all of their viewers think is pretty persuasive, but would have no effect on it

01:09:37.740 staying or going. CNN could just put the Q out of business. That's it. They just report 0.97

01:09:44.720 what their predictions were. That's it. It's out of business. But they won't do it. You'll never see

01:09:50.360 that. All right. If the vaccine, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine has a risk for younger women,

01:10:01.020 which we're still looking into, there's some indication it might, why did they stop giving it

01:10:05.580 to men? Is there something we don't know? And it's a serious question, right? If the

01:10:14.640 only adverse effects were 100% women, why did you stop giving it to men? Now, I think the Nate 0.99

01:10:22.380 Silver point was that if you added all the adverse risks together, it's still so small that you're way

01:10:28.720 better off getting the vaccination. But forget about that. We have, as far as I know, no indication

01:10:38.100 that men are in any way affected. Why don't you just give it to the men that frees up other 1.00

01:10:44.660 vaccinations for the women, the ones that don't seem to have this problem, right? Just give it to 1.00

01:10:52.500 men. Unless there's something they know about it that we don't know, so I'd worry about that.

01:10:57.780 Did you see the headline that former Bachelor lead Colton Underwood, he had some personal news he

01:11:05.620 needed to share with the world. Did you see that story? And this is a big surprise, but the personal

01:11:12.740 news is that the guy who was on The Bachelor came out as gay. Now, I would like to ask a provocative 0.99

01:11:22.680 question. I will preface this provocative question with the following. If you've been watching me for

01:11:30.760 a while, you know that I'm a great supporter of the LGBTQ community, especially transgender folks.

01:11:38.400 And so everything I say from this point on is meant with respect, okay? Because it could easily be

01:11:46.040 misinterpreted. So now that I've staged you a little bit, can anybody tell me why gay people look 1.00

01:11:52.520 gay? Is that confirmation bias? Because I saw this story, and I'm actually just asking,

01:12:00.760 because confirmation bias is so powerful that when I saw this story, and I saw a photo of Colton

01:12:08.640 Underwood, and he had teased that he was later going to tell us what his personal secret was,

01:12:13.380 I looked at the picture and said, he's obviously gay. And then he came out as gay. 0.75

01:12:20.180 Was there anybody who looked at his picture after you'd heard that he was going to come out with

01:12:29.260 some personal news? He kind of knew it was going to be gay, right? You didn't have to be a genius to

01:12:34.000 figure that out. But when you looked at his picture, once you'd been primed with that thought that he was

01:12:40.180 going to come out as gay, didn't he look gay, right? Is it just me? And again, this is with complete 0.64

01:12:49.520 respect. Complete respect. There's no disrespect meant in any of this interrogation. But, you know,

01:12:57.300 the gay population has been saying forever, and I think science backs them, that it's not a lifestyle 1.00

01:13:03.600 choice. You're kind of born, you're born gay, which I completely accept as true. Now, if you're born gay, 1.00

01:13:12.680 could it ever show up in your face? Like, could you? Because I think they've actually tested 0.99

01:13:19.280 the so-called gaydar, and I believe that gay men can actually detect just from the face 0.99

01:13:25.640 people who are more likely to be gay. I think that's a real thing, right? Somebody says unproven,

01:13:33.380 and I'll take your note as valuable there. Yeah, I don't know that the science has determined that

01:13:39.220 for sure. But here's the question. Is it confirmation bias? Because I've seen this guy, Colton Underwood,

01:13:49.600 a bunch of times. I've seen him in the context of The Bachelor. Not once, when I saw him in his

01:13:56.180 previous context, not once did my mind say, oh, he looks gay. Why is he on The Bachelor? Not once.

01:14:03.720 But the moment he teased it, he totally looked gay to me. Did that happen to you? I'm just wondering

01:14:10.920 if you had the same experience. And again, it's all with complete respect. It's just a curiosity I have.

01:14:16.600 All right. I'll look for your comments.

01:14:24.300 So Tucker Carlson's getting in trouble from CNN and all of his enemies for using the word

01:14:30.980 replacement, because apparently that's a word that is used by anti-Semitic people and people who think

01:14:38.280 that brown people will replace white people in the United States. But Tucker has been using the word

01:14:44.920 replacement, as in replacing people who are here. And I'm a little bit undecided on this.

01:14:53.840 So I'm going to work through this in public, okay? One of the things we like about Tucker

01:14:58.780 is that he won't bow to the woke crowd, right? It's the best thing about him. I mean, his show is

01:15:06.440 terrific. But if you're to name one thing, it's that he seems unusually resistant to being forced

01:15:15.280 to talk the way he's being told to talk or use the words that he has to use or anything. So when he

01:15:20.520 uses the word replacement, he doesn't cage it in this theory that the racists do. It's more of a just

01:15:26.960 descriptive. That if the country is a certain character and people like it that way, and you bring

01:15:33.880 in anybody from anywhere else, it doesn't matter their ethnicity, doesn't matter, you know, the people

01:15:39.560 want to make it about that. But if you bring in any other population that has a different culture,

01:15:44.220 different preferences, priorities, different anything, it's going to change what you got. And in a political

01:15:50.580 sense, the people who are here will have less voting power because there'll be fewer of them compared to

01:15:58.740 new people coming in. And if somebody wants to say that's a replacement, and I have to think that Tucker

01:16:05.120 is aware that that that specific word is triggering. So here's where I'm, here's where I'm on the fence on

01:16:12.780 this. So help me walk, help me through this. Okay. On one hand, as a communicator myself, I would never use a

01:16:20.780 word that I knew would be a distraction. Because, you know, Tucker is trying to make a point, but then his point is

01:16:28.080 completely lost because he used that word. So if you're just trying to be a good communicator, would you

01:16:34.900 use that word? If you knew it was going to cause all the attention to be sucked out of your point

01:16:40.920 and brought to a whole different point? Or do we appreciate and praise Tucker because, can I have

01:16:51.240 permission to swear? Everybody, can I give you a little warning? There's an F-bomb coming up.

01:16:59.160 Hide the children. Put earmuffs on the pets.

01:17:04.340 If Tucker Carlson is told you can't use the common word replacement, and Tucker Carlson is saying, 1.00

01:17:11.520 in effect, fuck you, I kind of like that. Don't you? I mean, I like, I like the fact there's 1.00

01:17:19.760 somebody taking a stand that I'm going to use words as words. And you can't tell me not to use

01:17:25.600 these words. I wouldn't do it. In other words, that's not the way I would play it, because I would

01:17:31.400 put more value on communicating without distracting. But I like that there are people who do, right?

01:17:38.380 I'm always, I'm always in favor of what I would call a creative tension. It's good to have people

01:17:45.080 on both sides of everything. It really is, because that's how you test each other. And having Tucker on

01:17:52.160 the other side of this, can I use this word or can I not? I think it's valuable, even though I

01:17:58.920 wouldn't do it. And even though I think he's drawing more, drawing more criticism than he needs,

01:18:04.540 really. Somebody says as, well, I don't know if he's using it for shock value. And I don't know,

01:18:12.440 and we don't know what he's thinking, but I'm just glad he exists as a pushback. Although I would

01:18:17.680 not play it the same way myself. All right. According to Rasmussen, they, they asked about whether,

01:18:28.940 they find that 29% of likely US voters say laws requiring photo identification at the polls

01:18:36.900 discriminate against some voters. So almost 30% say the requiring ID discriminates. 62% say voter ID

01:18:48.880 laws don't discriminate. Here's my problem with this question. So this is a Rasmussen poll. My question

01:18:58.660 is, don't people define discriminate differently? Because how could you, you can't really argue

01:19:05.160 that it changes the racial outcome. Do you? Is there anybody who's consuming news who doesn't know

01:19:12.580 that if you institute voter ID, it will change the number of people who vote by ethnicity?

01:19:20.000 I thought everybody knew that. And isn't that discrimination? So here's the, here's the tough

01:19:27.600 part. It's discrimination by a fact. I don't think that's even, even in conversation, is it? I believe

01:19:36.860 both the Democrats and the Republicans are firmly in the same camp that there'll be fewer black voters

01:19:43.020 if you make this change. And that's why the Democrats are arguing. And that's why the Republicans

01:19:49.180 want to do it because they're both on the same side, that it will have a racial outcome, which

01:19:54.900 Republicans think will, will favor them. So that just begs the question of how did you define

01:20:01.780 discriminate? Because if you ask me, does it discriminate? I would say, of course it does,

01:20:07.840 but you have to do it anyway. Do you know what else discriminates? Everything. Everything.

01:20:16.840 We don't stop doing everything because it all has a racial outcome, because it does. That's total

01:20:25.180 racial outcomes. Gender outcomes. Everything we do discriminates. So if you ask me, does this

01:20:31.840 discriminate? I'd say, well, yeah, it does. But we have to do it because the reason for doing it is

01:20:37.820 is better than the discrimination. That's why anything happens. Do you know who discriminates

01:20:43.920 terribly? The, the military. Try getting in the military. If you're out of shape or, you know,

01:20:54.020 you have a weight problem or, you know, you're blind, you've got a disability, you're a woman and you

01:21:00.920 want to be in certain parts of the military. The military is the most discriminating thing in the

01:21:05.740 world. But we allow it because we think the, you know, getting the most effective killing force is

01:21:13.020 more important than all of those, those other issues. So I worry about a question that says,

01:21:19.040 does something discriminate? Because I think just people are looking at it differently.

01:21:22.120 Um, that is my show for today. Or you're old, somebody says. I don't know what that means.

01:21:34.220 Um, somebody says, dismiss Malcolm Nance. Your thinking is suspect. Uh, nobody takes Malcolm

01:21:43.260 Nance seriously, do they? I didn't think, I didn't think there was anybody left who thought

01:21:47.600 he was a, uh, a credible player about anything. He, he's sort of like, uh, his record is sort

01:21:55.500 of Q-like, I think. Um, isn't there something like practical discrimination? Yeah, you don't

01:22:04.900 even need words for it. Discrimination is just universal. There's no big policy or public thing

01:22:11.000 you can do that doesn't, um, um, doesn't have a disproportionate effect on somebody. You

01:22:16.620 know, taxes, everything. Uh, all right. Here's a good comment I wanted to take on. So wrong

01:22:26.140 way to look at the Tucker thing, Scott. He doesn't need to be on eggshells with a bunch

01:22:30.140 of people who throw around the words white supremacist. Well, no, you're agreeing. You just

01:22:35.060 agreed with me. I'm saying that he's a valuable pushback to the people who are word warriors.

01:22:43.280 So I think you just said the same thing. You didn't disagree with me. And he comments on

01:22:48.280 Lindell. Uh, again, Mike Lindell is such a useful force in the world. And that doesn't mean he's

01:22:59.780 right. It just means, aren't you glad you live in a world where there can be a Mike Lindell,

01:23:06.020 somebody who's got F you money and he's got an opinion. If his opinion about the election turned out

01:23:13.060 to be more right than we understand at the moment, that would be really, really important.

01:23:20.960 But wait, what if he's wrong? What if he does all this and manages to get more transparency? And

01:23:28.060 when you've really looked into it, you just can't find anything. Still good. Still good. Mike

01:23:34.200 Lindell is a patriot and a national treasure. Not only did he show you, did he show the world that

01:23:42.200 you can be addicted to cocaine, turn your life around and be a big success, which is a really

01:23:47.600 good message, frankly. Like what could be more positive than to say I had my legal troubles,

01:23:53.580 my addiction troubles, and here I am. I'm the pillow king. Everybody needs to hear that. And

01:23:58.940 number two, like I said, every big issue, we need this creative tension. And he's one of the

01:24:05.640 biggest people creating that creative tension. And no matter which way it goes, and I actually

01:24:10.420 don't know which way it'll go, you'll either win or you'll lose. But boy, it's good to have that

01:24:15.580 creative tension. We need that. So he's a national hero, in my opinion, no matter where this ends

01:24:22.620 up. It's his faith that got him there, somebody's saying. Could be.

01:24:33.020 Ron says, Tucker is brilliant and entertaining, which is a big threat to the left. Yeah. Yeah.

01:24:39.720 Tucker is really good at being Tucker Carlson, in all the right ways. And I got to say, I don't

01:24:50.580 agree with his opinions quite often. I was watching yesterday, and he had a whole segment that I

01:24:56.900 didn't agree with any of it. But again, he's still a national treasure, because people are

01:25:02.700 not doing what he's doing. Was your secret anything to do with physics discoveries? No.

01:25:13.560 It's a perceptual thing. There's a perceptual thing happening in the country that I can't call

01:25:22.180 it out. And I can't tell you why I can't call it out. But it's really big. And it's shocking.

01:25:29.880 I didn't think, well, that's all I can say about it. Remote viewing. No, I don't think

01:25:41.380 remote viewing is real. Can I tell you something that I think enough time has gone by that I

01:25:51.280 can tell you a secret. You want to hear a secret? So many years ago, maybe two years ago,

01:25:59.880 20 or more years ago. There was a fellow who was a Dilbert fan, whose job was to research

01:26:09.000 ESP for the government. Yes, such a person existed. There was a real person who was in charge of

01:26:20.200 finding out if telepathy, remote viewing, and these other things were real. What do you think he found?

01:26:26.880 So I spent some time with him and got to ask any question I wanted. You know, we spent an afternoon

01:26:34.680 together. I got to find out, you know, what is the best knowledge anybody has? Because he worked for

01:26:42.080 the government, right? So he could get the best knowledge there was on this. Is it new?

01:26:48.080 Somebody says it's not news. The news part is that I talked to him personally. So whatever you heard in

01:26:56.660 the news, do you think it's true? You've been watching the news long enough to know that if it

01:27:01.700 was in the news, no. I hear the name Dean Radden. I also talked to him, but he's not who I'm talking

01:27:09.140 about. So Dean Radden is part of the story. And I had some brief contact with him years ago.

01:27:17.520 Well, it doesn't matter who it is, because it's somebody whose name you wouldn't recognize. But the

01:27:21.900 point is, I got to see what he believed based on his work. And there was a belief that at least

01:27:30.860 the remote viewing couldn't be explained away. So that's where it was. So all of the things like,

01:27:40.080 you know, ordinary ESP, you couldn't find any of that. So the, you know, if it existed, it would be,

01:27:45.920 you know, trace amounts, nothing you could weaponize. It wouldn't be useful if it exists at all,

01:27:52.380 and probably doesn't. Dean Radden thinks he found evidence of it, but that's controversial.

01:27:57.480 But the remote viewing, at least as of that day, there was one person who had studied it deeply

01:28:04.700 for the government, who believed that there was at least one person whose remote viewing couldn't

01:28:11.920 be explained by luck. Now, what was my reaction to that? I didn't believe any of it. I didn't believe

01:28:25.380 any of it. I didn't believe that a remote viewing didn't remove, didn't believe any of it. Doesn't

01:28:31.040 mean I'm wrong. You know, I mean, it doesn't mean it's right. I mean, who knows? But I didn't believe

01:28:37.700 any of it. So there's your secret. I did once have a private conversation, extended conversation,

01:28:45.140 with the person who knew the most, literally knew the most about this whole area, and I didn't find

01:28:52.280 anything there. Remote viewing is when a person who claims to be able to see things at a distance

01:28:59.360 would describe, for example, a Soviet nuclear submarine base, and it could even draw a picture

01:29:07.420 of it. And then when the base was found on satellite, they would compare the picture drawn

01:29:14.320 to the actual satellite. It would be like spooky close. Does that prove it was real? No. Because

01:29:24.600 here's why I don't take you seriously. If you and I tried to draw a picture of a, let's say, a nuclear

01:29:34.880 submarine base in Russia, don't you think that your sort of engineering brain that decides how things

01:29:43.860 should look wouldn't be that different than the person who actually designed the base?

01:29:50.760 Right? So I could see that I could do remote viewing, which would end up by coincidence, but not

01:29:57.380 really coincidence, because people think alike. That whoever built the base doesn't have a brain that's

01:30:03.420 that different from somebody imagining the base. See where I'm going? So I think the remote viewing

01:30:09.920 is sort of a constructive imagination that's not too far off from the person who is being remote

01:30:18.080 viewed, and if they think alike as humans, you can guess a lot of things just because people think

01:30:24.200 alike. That doesn't mean you saw it. That's what I think. All right, that's all I got for now, and I will

01:30:31.700 talk to you tomorrow.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - April 14, 2021

Episode 1344 Scott Adams： News Propaganda, Reframing Everything, Biden Versus Putin, and LOTS More

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript