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,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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,

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.

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.

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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,

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

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

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,

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

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

Length

Words per Minute

Word Count

Sentence Count

Misogynist Sentences

Hate Speech Sentences

Summary

Transcript