Episode 1107 Scott Adams: Fake Polls, How to Create Fake News Using "HOAX Edit" Technique, Coup Two

Hey, everybody, come on in. Come on in. It's time. It's time for coffee with Scott Adams. The best part of your entire day. Yeah, but that's only so far because you get the kickoff with a simultaneous sip. And then it just keeps getting better all day long until the next simultaneous sip. And then, bam, you're right back at it. Everything's trending the right way again. Now, it has come to my attention that some of you fast forward past the simultaneous sip. Well, hell, you can do that, but you're missing the good stuff. It's the part where everybody comes together in this moment of solidarity. There is no violence. There is no ugliness in the world during the simultaneous sip. And all you need, all you need is a copper margarita glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind. I like coffee. Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip. And it happens. Now go. I can feel the fatality rate dropping even as the coronavirus increases. Coffee. What can't it do? Somebody sent me this mug in the mail. Didn't have a name on it. There will be cursing. There will probably not be cursing today. I try to warn you when it's going to happen. Sometimes I can't always control it. Sometimes it just comes out. Well, I'm having a terrific time watching the Rasmussen Reports dunking on its competition. And it's pretty funny if you're not following them. So you should follow the Twitter account of Rasmussen Reports. And it's pretty hilarious what they do to their competitors. So wouldn't you expect this, since everybody knows there's going to be a bounce after a convention, that as soon as the convention is done, you'd have lots of polls because there are lots of polling places. So you'd sort of expect, given that everybody would be hyper interested in polling immediately after a convention. So there would be a lot of polls, wouldn't there? But as Rasmussen points out, there are a few that haven't weighed in, and it's been quite a while. Among the ones that haven't weighed in are, let's see, as of the 28th, anyway, Fox News, CNN, ABC, Washington Post, NBC, Wall Street Journal, NPR, Marist, New York Times, Sienna, USA Today, Suffolk, Monmouth, and Quinnipiac. Huh. And as Rasmussen points out, there is a big coincidence in how they seem to be the favored polls by the Democrats. In fact, the very same Polls that the Democrats used to determine if somebody had polled well enough to be in a debate. Huh? Isn't that a coincidence? There is a big coronavirus flare up in Europe. I'm sure you've heard of it because it's all over the news. If you open up cnn, obviously, and I'll do this right now to demonstrate, I go to the CNN homepage and we'll look for the story about the big flare up of coronavirus in Europe because, you know, I'd heard that Europe was doing really well compared to the United States. So it would be pretty big news if there was a major flare up in Europe. So I'll go to CNN to check the major news. Okay. It's not the top story, but obviously it's one of the top stories. So I'll just keep reading down. It's not, it's not the second or third story. Huh. It's actually not on their page. But they do have an excellent story about a man who built a bar for the squirrels in his backyard. It's a nut bar. And it's not, some would say it's not the biggest story in the news, but it was good enough to make the homepage of cnn. So yeah, there's a, there's a man who built a nut bar that dispenses nuts to the squirrels. What about the coronavirus in Europe? Can't be important. I don't know. But I did find an article not on cnn. They said that there's something curious about this uptick. It turns out that although the number of infections is spiking in some European countries, I think they mentioned Germany, Italy, Spain, France, I think, but they say that the death rate is actually really low relative to the number of people who are getting the coronavirus. Now the speculative reason is that it's young people who are starting to mingle and the young people are getting it and they're less likely to die. So since we've hidden the seniors pretty well, that's the likely explanation, is that young people just don't have the same outcomes. Or maybe somebody's using hydroxychloroquine that we don't know about. Now I'm not saying they are, I'm not saying they're not. I am saying it's not in the reporting of the story I read. It would just be one of the things I would have checked. Hey, is there any difference in the therapeutics you're using? Just to see now, I do think the explanation of the young people versus the old People is pretty solid. But is it the whole story? Wouldn't you like to know? Wouldn't you like to know? Uh, oh, what's this? Oh, spam. Never mind. So I would suggest that one of the possibilities, and there was somebody who recently said to me that they were worried that, I don't know, worried. Worried might be the wrong word. They were predicting, predicting that Trump probably wouldn't win the election because the coronavirus would be the primary thing that moves any independent voters. And that would not be looking good. To which I said, November is a long way away. And the most likely outcome is that there will be flare ups in these other countries that we thought were the role models of how to do it well, and here it is. It's a flare up in those other European countries because the European countries will be held as the most compatible standard to the United States. Because I think people will think, okay, if you're in an Asian country and there's a dictator, it's not really as comparable. So that was my prediction that Europe would have flare ups. But the other part of the prediction is that the danger from the coronavirus would be much less by November for a variety of different reasons. One of them might be exactly what's happening in Europe, which is maybe we'll have lots of infections but not lots of deaths. The President has pointed this out that why is nobody talking about our death rate being so good? And that's a good question. Why are we focusing on the number of infections when we know it's something that doesn't hurt most people who get the infection? But clearly there's some doubts about lingering effects, which we should keep an eye on. But I think that's. We don't know enough about that, but it's certainly dangerous. So I think that the likely outcome is that the President's performance will appear. And again, I always say you can't really compare leaders from one country to another. It's not really a thing because their situations are so different. It's just an apple and an orange. We will know that some will have better outcomes, but it is not rational to say, therefore the leader, if they had done something differently, you get a different outcome. In most cases that won't be obvious because everybody was guessing in the beginning. All right, so, but I think we might be in good shape if we follow the same pattern as Europe. Even as we get more infections, the death rate will continue to stay down. So as a national problem, still big, but it's going to look a lot smaller. And if the president can say, hey, we're. I'll just pick a number. Three weeks away from vaccination, even on election day, even if we don't have a single vaccination on election day, I don't think we will. He's still going to say, look, we're three weeks away and, you know, we're on the way. Basically, we're on top of this thing. Just give me three weeks. That's a pretty strong story. So I think the coronavirus story will be much smaller in people's minds on election day than it is today. That's my prediction. All right, we, and we also don't know about herd immunity, whether this T Cell thing is what's going on with the young people, might be that as well in the other countries. So it looks like coup number two is on. Coup two is, you know, the Russia collusion hoax was the first attempted coup to get rid of Trump. There are still some people who resist that narrative, if you will, or that framing. But at this point, it certainly looks like members of the permanent political class were trying to get rid of the president. And that seems pretty clear at this point, wouldn't you agree? I guess Democrats wouldn't agree, but it feels clear to me now, coup is shaping up this way. And if you have not studied how intelligence agencies influence other countries or even influence your own country, you probably have a blank spot in your understanding of the world. So let me fill that in. A typical intelligence agency thing would, if you wanted to influence somebody in the long term, would be to, let's say, influence movies and television to produce positive or negative portrayals of whatever you would like society to see as in a good way or a bad way. We know that that happens. We know that it works. We know that it's a gigantic thing. Every country that, let's say, has a dictator will control their media, their movies, etc. Because it's important. The reason that every dictator, the first thing they do is go to control their own media is because if that media has a life of its own, it becomes the power. You know, the leader loses power. If the news or not the news, that's that too. But even if movies and television are sending the wrong message, it's brainwashing the masses in a way that would be quite cause instability. So knowing that whoever controls the media, and I'm talking about movies and TV and entertainment, etc. Whoever controls that, can control the minds of the public. So far, that's not any conspiracy talk, right? So far you all understand that. That is very science and history driven. There's no hyperbole going on, people, yet it's a routine thing to influence the media, to influence the minds of the public. And you can see it when it happens once your filter is set. So once you understand that it's a thing, and it's not a minor thing, it's a really, really big, big thing, and it's really powerful. It's not the thing that's happening over in the weeds while you're watching the important stuff. It's the important stuff, right? The thing you maybe were just ignoring is actually the important thing, because that's what's making people feel and think the way they feel and think, and therefore they'll vote according to those feelings. So here's some things that are happening in this country right now that fit perfectly into the model of an intelligence agency priming the public for a coup, some kind of a takeover. So you can never know if that's what's happening, meaning you can never know if intentionally people are saying, all right, let's set up a coup and we'll do it this way. These people will do this, these people will do that. That part, I would say, is without evidence. But if it's really, really, you know, sort of obvious is right in front of you and you're primed to recognize it, it's really obvious. For example, and by the way, when I say an intelligence agency might be behind it, I don't mean that necessarily it's a foreign intelligence agency, although it well could be. I don't mean that it's necessarily our own intelligence agencies who, let's say, have a bias but enter implementing it. But there are plenty of people who are not, shall we say, on the payroll of any intelligence agencies who are, let's say, intelligence agency adjacent, intelligence agency friendly. All right? So you don't have to be getting a paycheck from an intelligence agency to be part of that construct. And in fact, that's the typical way that things get done. It's a, you know, a sort of a network of a loose network of people who have similar interests, let's say. So here are some things happening in this country, and just ask yourself if this looks a little bit fishy. Number one, these protests slash riots, looting. Does it seem to you that these are a little bit too persistent, a little bit too organized? Now, I would say that the vast majority of the people who show up probably have good intentions, you know, according to their view of the world, good intentions in terms of Making it a fairer world, good intentions of helping things for black citizens in this country. I'm all for that. I do a lot of work on behalf of black citizens. You don't know it all, you know, because I don't talk about it as much. But I'm all for that. So that's good. And I'm glad that there are people who are willing to, you know, go to the streets to make that case. I think I'm, I'm happy about that too. But remember when I suggested that, you know, the energy comes out of these things if you just wait. Well, that did work with Chop Chaz. The authorities waited until the energy went down and then they dismantled it. I thought that was the right, exactly the right strategy for that specific situation. But are you surprised at how durable these protests are? It suggests that somebody is getting paid to organize. That doesn't mean it's true, but it strongly suggests there's something non organic happening because the consistency of it just raises a flag. It looks a little bit like there's money from something from somebody, someplace that might be propping up the level of energy you're seeing. Sure. It's a, you know, I'll give you that. It's a divided country. I'll give you that. It's an election year, so there was plenty of energy to be had and that energy was going to go somewhere, but the specific place it's going seems to be the place that you could most effectively hide bad behavior. Let's say if you knew you wanted to send in some people who were going to set things on fire, how would you do it? Well, you'd hide them in a giant crowd of people who have good intentions, but who are unwilling to change what they're doing because they're fighting for something important. You know, equality under the law, equality of, you know, the, of your life experience, etc. And again, I'm all for that, but it makes it really easy to hide the bad people in, in the crowd and, and they become excused because the news will say, but look at all these good people. This is mostly good people. It's, it's a little bit of stuff on fire, but it's mostly good people. So if you were an intelligence organization or you had been trained by one, or you were adjacent to them and you knew how they operated, it would be exactly what you would do. You would do it exactly this way. You would organize, well meaning protests and then you would make sure there were some bad elements in there to really mess up the country. And again, I'm not saying that there's evidence that that's happening. I'm saying that once you learn to look for it, you can see the fingerprints, but you'd still have to, you know, you'd have to do a lot of work to know that's what you're seeing. That's not confirmation bias. Have you seen that? The fake news media is doing stories about, what if Trump doesn't leave office? That's a priming move. And you've seen stories about what would it take in terms of the military removing Trump from office if he lost in a narrow election and refused to leave? That is a priming move. I'm not saying it's coming from an intelligence agency. I'm not saying it's coming from any foreign country, Putin or China. I'm saying that if they wanted to mess with us, it would look exactly like this. It's exactly the way an intelligence operation would be. You'd prime the public and you put the thought in their mind, huh, Trump wouldn't leave. What if he doesn't leave? Because if I've taught you anything about influence and persuasion, the more you think about a topic, the more real it becomes. There's no logic to that. That's why it's persuasion and not rational thinking, but simply making you deal with the question over and over again of, huh, what would we do? Would the military step in? It primes you for that being a real possibility, whereas it would have felt impossible, you know, two years ago, but now they've put it in people's head as a possibility. So you've got that going on, and then you've got the third thing, which is it looks like some intentional activity to make the election outcome less credible. One of those is that the polls would appear to be faked. Does that seem true? Does it look like there's a lot of polling that seems faked? Yes, it does. Again, that doesn't mean the intelligence agencies are faking the polls, but that's how they would do it. You know, if they were involved, it would look exactly like that. Now, because of the mail in voting, the mass mail in voting. I'm not. I'm not talking about absentee mailing, which has a long history of being good enough. Whether you think the mass mailing is perfectly credible or you don't. A lot of Republicans would say no. A lot of Democrats would say, it's perfectly good, it's going to be fine. Wouldn't you? If you were an intelligence agency and you wanted to really mess with this country. Wouldn't you push a type of voting that would be guaranteed to be not credible? When it was done, you would. That's exactly what you would do. You would make sure that people were talking about the one thing that you know won't be trusted and it's mail in votes. Now that doesn't mean that they're not good. It doesn't mean that the mail in votes won't be accurate. I'm not saying that they won't be accurate. I'm no expert on that. I'm saying that would be easy to cheat. All you have to do is throw grandma's ballot in the garbage and you're done. Be the world's easiest thing to cheat. And Republicans assume that. So you recently had America's senior general responding to this. The Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, General Mark Milley told members of Congress because they had to ask, can you believe it? They had to ask this question of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and he had to answer it. This is scary stuff. And he said that the military will not play a role in November's election and won't help settle any disputes if the results are contested. Now do we believe that? Yes. Yes, we do. I think our military is well trained. I think our military are patriots. It's a volunteer service. Do you think that the people volunteering to fight for this country don't know what the Constitution says about the transfer of power? Do you think the people who volunteer to be in the US Military, do you think that they don't like the country or that they would put up with a couple while they still have weapons? They, you know, anybody's going to have access to weapons. So I don't think the military is going to be siding with anybody in an election in this country in 2020, you know, anything's possible in the future, but in 2020, no, no, they, they are way too well trained and they are selected, self selected if you will, to fight for this country. They're not self selecting to fight against it. That's not happening. All right, so let me reiterate that there is no evidence that I'm aware of that there's any outside influence on what you're seeing with the protests and with the continuous news about, hey, what about if this election isn't valid, but it would look exactly like it. So here's what you would want to do. You would certainly want to find out if any of these people that are getting arrested for vandalism and Other things during these protests, especially the organizers, you would want to find out where their money is coming from. And I'm talking about just the average guy who gets, you know, or woman who gets picked up for breaking a window. If it looks like they're professional, if it looks like they're just doing all the windows, pick them up, find out where the money is coming from. You might find something. Now, they're probably getting paid in Bitcoin if there's any bad behavior going on, so you probably couldn't find it. But if they had big deposits or expenses, maybe you could find it. If they had big cash deposits that were unrelated to any employment, I'd want to know that. All right. Cloud Research, a group called Cloud Research found that almost 12% of Republicans say they would not report their true opinions about the presidential candidate they preferred on telephone calls. So 12% of Republicans would lie or refuse to answer? I guess, if they were polled. 12%. Do you think that's real? No, that's not real. It's way bigger than that. Do you know any Republicans who don't say that they would hide their opinion from pollsters? I mean, they exist, but I think it might be closer to 80% would lie to pollsters or at least would consider it. But I suppose when the phone rings, you're not really thinking that necessarily, so you just say your opinion most of the time. So let's accept that 12% of Republicans say they would lie to a pollster. How many Democrats? According to this poll, 5.4%. So half as many Democrats would conceal their true feelings? What's that mean? Do you think that the 5% of Democrats who would conceal their true vote, it's because they're going to vote for Biden. Would Democrats conceal their preference for Biden? So this isn't in the story, but don't you think 5% of Democrats are leaning Trump at the moment and they don't want to tell pollsters? I've got a feeling that all of the people who are Republican and all of the people who register as Democrat when they say they wouldn't give the truth to a pollster. I think both the Republicans and the Democrats are thinking the same thing. Just speculation. But it feels like those are the Democrats that are sort of leaning Trump, if you know what I mean. Because seriously, in what world would you be afraid to say you're going to vote for Biden? You wouldn't. If you were a Democrat, you wouldn't be afraid to say you were going to vote for Biden. Not even a little bit. It's perfectly socially acceptable. And 10.5% of independents fell into the shy voter category. So 10% of independents, 11% of Republicans and 5% of Democrats are all maybe pro Trump and not willing to say it in public. What does that tell you about what the elections could look like? It should be a blowout. Remember, Rasmussen is teasing the the pro Democrat polling places for holding off on their polling after the convention bump. I think you can see it, you can see it coming. Protesters built a mock guillotine outside of Jeff Bezos house. Let me ask you this. If you were a foreign intelligence agency or any intelligence intelligence agency, or you had those skills and you wanted the protesters to get more violent, how would you do it? Well, one way would be to send some plans for how to build a mock guillotine to some organizers. You say, hey, have you thought of this? This would be a fun idea, nice visual for the cameras. Why don't you get a fake guillotine going? You'll get some more cameras going. It'll be fun, you'll love it. Now, the people who get that say, this would be great, I can build that. And they build their fake guillotine, as was done in front of Jeff Bezos house. And what do you think that that is just a harmless prank? No, it's not. If you were an intelligence agency trying to influence another country, what you do is you would try to get their imagery and their communication to shift from, hey, let's have a fairer, better world, let's try harder, let's work better, let's work together, let's fix this inequality. That was, that's the messaging you'd expect. But when you introduce a death sentence message, a guillotine, literally a violent revolution image, does it have an impact on the public? Not by itself. By itself, just a joke. Just some people with bad, bad, I'd say bad decision making to do that. But collectively, if you insert enough of these images of, hey, maybe this revolution isn't like the other ones, maybe these protests are not just protests, maybe they have a violent future and we're just warning you there's a little foreshadowing. Let's just put it in your head, let's just make you think about it. I'm not saying you should execute Jeff Bezos. I'm just saying let's think about it for a day. That's what's happening. If you look for it, it's everywhere. It's identical to what a psychological operation would look like, but we don't know that's what's happening. It just looks exactly like it. Apparently, the Chicago Teachers Union did a glowing endorsement of the people with the guillotine in front of Bezos house. They tweeted, and this is literally from their Twitter account, the Chicago Teachers Union Twitter account. We are completely frightened by, comma, completely impressed by, and completely in support of wherever this is heading. And then it showed a picture of them assembling the guillotine in front of Bezos house. Where this is heading? Where this is heading. Where this is heading. You the. You the. I'm sorry. Turns out this mug is a little bit more on point than I thought it would be. There will be cursing, so I'm warning you now, hide your children. If you don't like cursing, feel free to mute this or turn it off for now. The teachers unions are literally encouraging violence against entrepreneurs. Violence against entrepreneurs is coming from an actual Chicago's teachers union. The teachers unions, as you know, are the source of all systemic racism in this country. Now, that's an over claim, but the point is that if you get the education system right, black people are educated well instead of as poorly as our current system educates them. Totally systemic racism in education. They're 100% right about that. But the cause is the teachers unions, because the only way anything ever got fixed anywhere in humankind is if there was competition. They're the ones who remove the competition, but they've gone beyond that. It's one thing to protect your. The people in your union. That's the job of the union. Right? So if they're doing stuff where they're advocating good things for their members, even if they go too far, you'd say, well, it's not where I wanted it to go. But you have to admit that it was their job. Their job was to get good things for their members. But is this. That is encouraging imagery of killing, literally killing with a guillotine, executing the people in charge and favoring that in public? Is that just protecting their members? No, it's not. And if I were to look for the source of intelligence agency funding from a foreign country, I would look at the teachers unions because they do have plenty of money from their members to do what they need to do. In terms of bribing politicians, literally bribing politicians, literally getting them elected through. Well, I won't say literally bribing because that implies a legal context. Let me say functionally bribing for all practical purposes, but as far as I know, in a perfectly legal way because our system allows it to legally bribe our politicians to get what they want. And here they're actually promoting death. Now do you think somebody who is a patriot or loves this country would tweet in public something that clearly is intended to make people think more about killing the elite? Do you think that came from an American who had pure American motives? Doesn't sound like it. Sounds like it came from China. Sounds like it came from a country that does not have our best interest mind. So I'm not saying that they're on the payroll of a foreign entity. I'm saying that if I were a foreign entity and I had a long term plan to destroy the United States, I would target the teachers unions because that's the lever that moves the country. And it's only a few individuals who are the powerful people on any leadership group. And if you got the big cities, let's say you got your Chicago, your New York, your la, a few of the big ones, you'd have enough power. So I would guess that a foreign entity could bribe. Maybe I'll just put a number on it. Thirty people who were the heads of the big teachers unions, they could bribe probably just 30 people. And how expensive would that be? Not very expensive. Do you know how much it costs to bribe 30 people? Not a lot of money. So for bribing 30 people or co opting them in whatever subtle ways they would get to destroy the fiber that holds this country together, the school system and the equality which it should be providing but is doing the opposite, apparently. The DOJ. I saw this on a Jack Posabic tweet that 74 people face federal charges based on Portland demonstrations. Demonstrations, okay, I guess I'd call them a demonstration. But 74 people are up for federal charges. I didn't know that many people got arrested, but I guess it adds up over time. And those are exactly the people that we should be looking into. Where their money is coming from. From even if the money is coming from their parents and even if the money is coming from the government because the government might be paying them some unemployment benefits relative to the coronavirus, you know, the, the extra bump there. And I guess there's a Congress Congressperson who wants to take that away. So if you get convicted of protesting, I guess, and doing something bad while you're protesting, there's some thought that maybe you should lose your government benefits related to the coronavirus. I don't think that's going to get passed, but I like where it's coming from. I'm trying to mock Anderson Cooper today. I'm mocking him off of his ridiculous comment that the President suggested drinking bleach, which never happened. Now when he says the President suggested drinking bleach, he was mocked on the air by the Trump supporters who knew it was just a lie. And he acted like he didn't know. He acted like he really thought it happened. Now he modified it from bleach to disinfectant. So apparently he did know that part was a lie, but not a big lie. If it was disinfectant, it wouldn't be a big lie to call it bleach. That would just be over specifying. Wouldn't be the biggest lie in the world, but it would be a gigantic lie if nothing like that at all had been said, suggested. And I tweeted this question trying to find the best way to mock him. So I tweeted, what does Anderson Cooper call it when doctors use a special device to insert UVC light into a patient's trachea or lungs to test whether it can kill viruses without harming the patient? And then I linked to a news story in which they're testing exactly that. And I said, the answer is drinking bleach. That's what Anderson Cooper calls it. When doctors put a device into your lungs that has UVC light, he calls it drinking bleach on live tv. And by the way, that's actually what he called it. Is that hyperbole? No, that's literally drinking bleach. Those words are what he did to characterize doctors using a special device to insert UVC light into a patient's trachea or lungs and to test whether it could kill virus without harming the patient. He called that drinking bleach on tv on a channel that's supposed to be the fucking news. The fucking news. He did that. Now, has he been corrected? I don't know. He seems to have believed it was true. He actually fucking thought that was true. Now how dumb do you have to be to think that anybody, no matter what you think of this president, do you think you really went on national tv? And seriously, you're so fucking dumb that you think you went on national TV and said, oh, what about drinking bleach? What about that? And you've hypnotized yourself so deeply that that sounded like something that was in the realm of maybe true. No, you fucking idiot. Anderson Cooper, you fucking destructive idiot. That was never in the realm of something that could have been maybe sort of true. It wasn't on the fucking planet of something that was true. Maybe dig into it a little bit deeper and find out that there was a news story that very week about the doctors doing this very trial with real doctors in a real clinical setting. How about talking about how. Well, let me do this on the whiteboard. I played my own hoax recently to give it a test of how the hoax edit works. So the hoax edit works this way. So the fine people hoax. Trump did in fact say that there were fine people on both sides. That's true. So they keep that part. And then Trump wanted to make sure that he was not misinterpreted. So we went on to say, just to make sure that nobody was confused, he said, I'm not talking about the white nationalists and neo Nazis. They should be condemned. Totally. So to make a true thing into a hoax, you just delete the clarifier, which is what they did. They also deleted some middle part where he talked about people just caring about the statues in a historical sense. Now, the drinking bleak chokes is done a similar way. The first thing you do is get rid of the context. Because when Trump was making his statement about injecting disinfectant, which was a poor choice of words, but he did clarify it. So they delete the context that there's a real thing, that light is a disinfectant and that Trump was talking about light as a disinfectant, that was the context. Beyond that is the context that it was really being tested by real doctors. So you get rid of that. So there's no context. You keep the part where Trump was asking about, could you some way inject this into the body? Talking about light. Light. So you keep that part, which is a little bit confusing. And then at the end, Trump went back to light, so you'd know that was the topic. So he started with light. That's the context. He ended with light. And there was nothing in between, except he used the word disinfectant, which is a proper use of the word for light, but it's not a common use of it. So people were confused because he used it in the clinical sense. Correctly. Correctly. Light is a disinfectant. He used it correctly. And then he clarified that he was always talking about light, and they just get rid of that. So they show you the clip without the front, the context, or the clarifier at the end. I tested this recently with my own hoax. I created a. Let me give you some context. So some of you have seen I've been tweeting and talking about the satanic connections to Joe Biden's campaign the first time I did it and each time after that that I've talked about it, at least on Periscope. I always say I'm not a believer, meaning I don't believe in Satan, which should be a key that anything I say about Joe Biden having a satanic connection means I don't believe it. I do say explicitly and repeatedly that all we're seeing is confirmation bias and coincidence, and that you see this kind of coincidence in any complicated topic, no exceptions. Anything that's a rich topic with lots of variables will always have whatever coincidence you're looking for. Just look for a coincidence and you'll find it. And so I did my demonstration of showing how many Biden, Satan coincidences there are from the pentagram they use in their logo to Kamala Harris having six letters and Kamala six letters in Harris and vice president of the United States is six words. The fact that Biden had been living and working underground like Satan, I mean, these were clearly jokes. But what you didn't know is that there was a larger purpose to it. What I did was make sure that I created a body of work in which the clarifiers could be removed by the fake news. I actually created it to be turned into fake news intentionally, right in front of you. All right? Now, I've been telling my followers on Locals, which is a subscription service, so I give them all the secrets first, and I told them exactly what I was doing, that the idea was to get people to lop off my clarifiers so that they would treat me like a crazy person who believes that Satan is walking the earth in the form of Joe Biden. How. How long did it take for that exact thing to happen? Not long at all. Turns out that there are several articles floating around in which they did the hoax at it. They got rid of my clarifiers. They only showed the part where I'm talking about Biden being Satan. And then they got rid of the clarifiers I put at the end saying that you shouldn't believe it, and even I don't believe it. So that is the hoax edit. Now, the news does this all the time. This is the most common thing you see on the news is the hoax edit. And until you understand that, it's easy, it's predictable. It's so predictable that I could cause it to happen as a public demonstration right in front of you. Now, the second part of this is that some people will see the fake edit, the hoax, and they will think it's true. Meaning they won't just think that I think it's true. They will actually think it's true. So what I did was trick the fake media into using the hoax edit, which would create a way for me to cross over into their silo. This was the trapdoor I was looking for and they fell into it brilliantly. So every time they show me as a kook saying that Biden has a satanic coincidences and connections that is going to be spread to their viewers, some of whom are going to say I better look into this, I better look into this. Some of whom will come to believe it is true and they will not vote for Joe Biden. Now I wouldn't normally intentionally frame somebody as satanic if you were not spreading the fine people hoax. The fine people hoax, as I've told you many times, puts a target on my back. Me personally, I'm not talking in some specific generic way. Me personally puts a target on my back and makes it unsafe for me to go in public. Do you see what happened to Rand Paul? We'll talk about that in a minute. Now as long as Joe Biden is spreading this hoax which makes me personally in danger, then self defense is on the table. What can you do in self defense? Is there anything that would be immoral in a self defense context? Not really. Now your mileage might differ. You might say to yourself, you know, even in self defense, I wouldn't do something bad to somebody that was this bad. Even in self defense. That's a personal decision. My personal decision is that if it's self defense, everything's on the table. Everything's on the table. Nothing's off the table if you're attacked. Now obviously you could go to jail if you overreact and somebody punches you and let's say you kill them when they're running away. You could find lots of things that clearly are a bad idea, bad strategy, bad. Self defense doesn't even qualify really as self defense. Lots of ways to go wrong. I'm just saying it's a personal preference that I'm not going to do anything that will put me in jail if I can avoid it. But I'm just saying it's all on the table. If it's self defense, there is no immoral. You know that. Normally it would be completely unethical and immoral to brand somebody as satanic, but not in this case. In this case, he earned it. He has it coming. It would make the world a better place if we can get him off the face of the earth just because of that. Just because of the fine people hoax that targets me and you, I'm making it personal because I'm telling you what I'm doing about it. You can make your own decisions, but you're totally targeted if you're a Trump supporter. A word of caution. I asked on Twitter how many people made money in 2020 by betting on things, things that I may have predicted or suggested. And it turns out a lot of people made money playing, placing bets that I would be right about stuff, right about Kamala Harris being vice president. If they bet it on. If they bet on her to be president, they lost money. If they bet that Biden would not be the nominee, they would have lost money. So here is my caution to you. I get that it's fun to bet. Totally get that. And if you were to bet, let's say, $20 or if you could afford it, if you bet a hundred dollars on some legal betting site or with your co worker, you know, I'm not suggesting you do anything illegal. So let's, let's just keep it to whatever is legal. If it's small and it's just for fun, yeah, go ahead, have fun. You know, betting on my opinions is as good as anything else, but don't put big bets on anything that you heard from me. People made a ton of money in 2016 doing that because a lot of people heard me and were convinced that Trump would win. And people put big bets on that stuff. I'm talking like $10,000 bets, $100,000 bets, big bets. Now, I didn't know about this until after Trump won. If I had known ahead of it that people were putting serious money on my opinion, I would have tried pretty hard to talk you out of it. And that's what I'm doing now. Don't put big bets unless you can afford it. I mean, if you're a billionaire and you want to bet $100,000, knock yourself out. But if you're, you know, if you're a wage earner, you've got a regular life, don't bet a thousand dollars, you know, don't bet $10,000. Because you saw my opinion. If there's anything I can teach you about investing, this is obviously not investing, but even in the investment world, past performance does not suggest future performance. If I had gotten 100 in a row, right? If I'd gotten 100 in a row, right, it still doesn't mean I'm going to get the next one right. Unless I'VE got some weird superpower. So although I would agree that some of my predictions have been spooky, they're so accurate, even I don't believe I can do that forever. All right? So don't have more confidence in me than I have in myself. I don't think I can predict things accurately forever. Even, you know, 2N and a 3 type of thing. Obviously everybody gets them wrong, but don't have more confidence in that than I have in myself. All right, NBA games will resume Saturday. And it turns out that the way they resolved it was they made an agreement, the NBA did to establish what they call a social justice coalition. And the league and the players said that in a joint statement. So we're good now, I guess systemic racism's been largely fixed by this establishment of a social justice coalition in the NBA. And I'm sure that lots of good will come out of that. They'll be producing lots of actionable, practical things. So we're all looking forward to see what comes out of that. I would say that I was a little worried about ongoing division in the country and racism and systemic racism, which is very real. But now it's been solved by this joint statement about the social justice coalition. So I don't think it happens immediately. So let's give it a little time. But, you know, the thing that the players were striking about does seem like it's handled now. Looks like they've taken care of it. So congratulations to the NBA for fixing systemic racism without losing a single paycheck. Now that's pretty good. And the NBA players still got paid and they solved systemic racism. Did you do that today? No. You're not as awesome as they are. You probably didn't do any of that today. But they solved systemic racism, didn't miss a paycheck. That's pretty good work. It needs to be said that I think the DNC convention, which was a hot mess of a zoom class looking thing, would have been a lot better if Harvey Weinstein could have been around to produce it. I'm just saying that's a fact. They took their best player off the table and, well, now you see what happens. Yes, Harvey Weinstein was their best. Their best player. So you can see that's hurting them now. Sandia Labs has a little civil war erupting. Christopher Ruffo, or Ruffo R U F O is talking about this on. He's following it for us on Twitter. And he investigated and apparently there's a dissident electrical engineer. Stop. Stop right there. Just stop. There's a dissident electrical engineer. I just have to pause to enjoy the tingle that I have on my entire body. He's not an artist. He's not an artist. There's somebody at Sandia Labs who's trained in critical thinking, who's actually getting politically active. I thought, my God, what happens if smart people start getting politically active? What would happen? What happens if smart people start, like, getting into decision making on the national level? Things could happen. So let's see what kind of trouble this dissident electrical engineer named Casey Peterson is up to. I guess he emailed 16,000 employees denouncing critical race theory in the lab, and he hoped to spark a rebellion against the Sandia executives. And I thought to myself, number one, the Sandia executive's probably thinking about firing this guy. Do you think he cares about getting fired? Do you know what the market is for electrical engineers? This electrical engineer is almost as bulletproof as I am. And I'm pretty fucking bulletproof, all right. Even I could lose my job. But this electrical engineer, he's got a job for life. Because it's really hard to find an electrical engineer. And even if all the liberal leaning companies in the world says, no, no, we can't hire you because that thing you did once, there's still plenty of startups who are going to say, you know, I just want you to do electrical engineers, engineering. You know, I don't care about politics. So this guy realizing that to a large extent, you know, it's not a perfect world, but to a large extent he's bulletproof and he's an electrical engineer, which means that if he were to get into a debate with anybody on the other side, he would eviscerate them. Because if I might swear just one more time, the reason that the electrical engineer would eviscerate the people who he argues with is because the electrical engineer is not a fucking idiot. That's it. That's a big advantage, not being a fucking idiot. And he's not. So because he's an electrical engineer, you have to be pretty smart to be one of those. And so I don't even know exactly what critical race theory is. How many people in the public know what that is even? Are there that many people who could even define critical race theory? I don't know exactly what's in it, but at least part of what he is concerned about is that they were going to separate black people who work for the company to be their own special groups, which is kind of suspect. And then I guess the white employees would have to take classes to learn how bad they are. They're. Because they're. They're biased and racist. So that's part of it, but I don't know what else is in there. So we'll see. If he gets fired, I can't imagine he would keep his job, but good things are going to happen. All right, how many of you saw the. The video of Rand Paul trying to leave the Republican National Convention being immediately swarmed by angry and dangerous protesters who were jostling them and the two police officers who were trying to protect them? As I heard Rand Paul say, and this is amazing because he had a mask on. He was concerned that the two police officers didn't know that he was a member of Congress. So as he told it, he was telling them, I'm a member of Congress, you'd better call reinforcements. He wasn't just a guy leaving the convention, and he was trying to tell the police officers, you'd better get reinforcements now. I think they did call for reinforcements, but by that time, they had gotten them out of most of the trouble. Now, Rand Paul is quite a baller, in my opinion. This would be the third time that I'm aware of that he's been targeted just for being Rand Paul. One was, you know, when he was at the baseball field when the shooter came, he. Luckily he did not get shot, but he was targeted for being who he is, along with the other people who are. Who they were, the Republicans. He was targeted by his neighbor, all right, and literally attacked and had a long recovery from that. That was pretty bad. And now he gets assaulted. I think assaulted would be the right word by this crowd. And he just keeps on going. And he even got assaulted by a crowd who was on the same side with him because he introduced the legislation that they were mad about, the legislation they wanted to get rid of the no knock warrants. He actually introduced a bill with the name of the victim, the Breanna Taylor. Is that it? And they were saying, say her name, say her name. Like he was some random guy instead of the one guy who was as on their side as they could possibly be on that topic. So that's the first story, but there's a second story that's like it that's different. Rand Paul is probably about my size, meaning that if an angry crowd were to surround me, I would feel in quite a bit of danger because of just the, you know, the poundage they have versus the physical size that I have. So that would be pretty dangerous. For a guy my size, for a woman who was, you know, smaller. For anybody smaller, these, these crowd dangerous situations are pretty, pretty scary. But it turns out that the crowd also noticed a guy named Dan Bongino. You know, Dan Bongino, right? Now, Dan Bongino would be whatever is the opposite of Rand Paul in terms of physicality. I'm not making fun of Rand Paul. I'm just saying that Dan Bongino is a beast. Have you seen the arms on that guy? Have you seen what he can deadlift? He's a beast. Ex, you know, ex police training. Was he Secret Service? So he's got all the, he's got all the serious hand to hand training, I assume, I assume he's got all that training and he's just a monster of a human specimen. Now. He got surrounded by the crowds. Except here's the thing that's different. One look at Dan Bongino, especially if they knew of him or knew of his work. He's a predator. He's not a victim. And you surround a predator. And here's what you have to be thinking. And I hope that they were, as they surrounded him, were they aware that in his mind he's having a conversation with them? I think he said something like, you know, watch my show. Or you know, he had some banter going. But, you know, based on his training and the fact that he's a predator, you know that in his mind, was this following calculation true or false? He was thinking, which one do I kill first? You know, that's what he was thinking because he was thinking, all right, should I take out the big one first because then I can end the smaller ones more easily. Or should I take out a small one and just, you know, destroy somebody's skull right in front of the rest and would they be horrified enough that that would make them leave? Should I break a leg? Should I take out an eye? Should I permanently cripple somebody or should I actually kill them? I don't know Dan Bongino personally, I'm not a mind reader, but I would think that if you put me in that situation and I don't have any of that training, that's what I'd be thinking. I'd be thinking which one to kill first and how to do it. I just wouldn't have the skills to pull it off. If I had the skill to pull it off, yeah, Dan Bongino could have kicked the shit out of the entire crowd in any order he wanted to do it while protecting, I don't know, he might have been there with his wife or something, but while protecting other people because he has those skills. And I wondered if the protesters were even aware how close they were to death, although I think he's smart enough that he wouldn't have actually killed them. That would be too much trouble for him. But he would have messed them up. There would have been bodies on the street if they had even just, just gone a little bit too far. And to hear Bongino completely calmly talking to them versus the image of Rand Paul, who was in real danger. Rand Paul was in serious danger. There's no joking about that. Dan Bongino. I think the protesters were in serious danger, but it didn't happen. I asked this question on has Joe Biden ever fired anybody? Because if he's never fired anybody, he's never managed anything that matters. Joe Biden has never fired anybody that I've heard of. Now, probably in his life he has. But wouldn't you like to hear from anybody he's fired? Because we have this, this endless string of people that Trump has fired in the past who say bad things about him. Do you think that the people that Biden fired, if there are any, who knows if they exist, but do you think if he fired anybody that they have a good opinion of him? That's news. I think we should find anybody that Biden has fired and talk to them about how great Biden is, because I think they would tell us a story. Now, if there is no such thing as a person who's ever fired, been fired by Biden, how can you take him seriously as a candidate to run and manage the United States? You don't go from managing nothing to managing the biggest country in the world. Trump went from managing a vast financial empire with lots of moving parts to to managing another vast empire with lots of moving parts. That's pretty close to the kind of talent you want to bring to the job. Let's see what Joe Biden has. Speaking of the Trump administration, I have a theory that no one has ever explained to Trump himself why these, the idea of using the over the counter saliva test strips that don't require any machine to get a result. You just look at the change of color, sort of like a pregnancy test and they're not on the market because the FDA has some concerns about them. Now, of course, they don't catch as much. They're not as there are words that the scientists like to use, specific specificity versus accuracy, etc. But the basic idea is that the test strips would not get every, every infected person as accurately as the professional kinds of tests, but they would be so cheap and so ubiquitous that it would overwhelm that small defect of not being as accurate. Because you just test twice, test twice, test today, test tomorrow. And even if they're a little less accurate, it's probably going to pick it up. So given that the, as I said before, that the Trump administration is silent on this question, they haven't approved it. They haven't not approved it, they don't respond to it. The working assumption you should have is that this is incompetence or corruption. So this would be just a glaring flag for incompetence or corruption. Now, that doesn't mean that Trump personally knows this math, because it's a little complicated. When you explain this to people, they just say, wait, wait a minute. How in the world could a test which is less sensitive than these other tests, how in the world is this a good idea? And it's hard to explain. It takes a little explaining. All right? They're so cheap. You could do it at home. Everybody could do it every day. It wouldn't get every infection on the day it started, but it would definitely get the vast majority of them. That alone is enough to, you know, it mocks, I would say it mimics herd. Well, I won't use that because you won't like the analogy, but it would be so effective, even inaccurate, that it would basically stomp out the virus for all practical purposes. It would make the country's economy open up. Now, if anybody ever explained that to Trump the way I explained it, so he could understand that there's already a cheap, easy way out of the coronavirus. You just have to understand the math, which is a little backwards. It doesn't make sense that the inaccurate tests are the ones you want. That doesn't make sense to your brain when you first hear it. So I don't believe anybody's ever made that case to Trump because it would just be too obvious that that's what he would be pushing to do, or at the very least, he would tell us where we're at with that or why we can't do it. So there is some kind of massive either corruption or incompetence in the Trump administration. I don't know exactly where. Could be in advisors, could be at the fda, could be both. But there's something seriously wrong. And I'm not saying that I'm so smart. I know that this is the way to solve the problem. I'm saying that we need an Answer, just an answer why it's not the right idea, which would be fine. Or an answer that they're working on it, which would be fine as well. So the fact that the Democrats are not digging into that suggests that they also. Meaning the fake news. You know, why isn't CNN reporting on what I just said? I mean, here's one of the most high profile Trump supporters in the world, and I'm calling out corruption or incompetence. You can't tell which one from the outside in the Trump administration. Why is that not. Why is that not news? Haven't you seen that? Every time there's anybody who's a Trump supporter who turns on him in any way, it's automatically news. Do you know why this isn't news? Because if they highlight the fact there's a solution to the coronavirus, Trump would learn about it. Presumably he's not learning about it through his, his advisors. He would learn about it for the first time and then he would solve the fucking crisis so they can't report on it. Is that the worst thing you've ever heard in your life? That's, that's what we're living in right now. That's the world you're living in, is what I just described. All right, Jeff Giza. I don't know if I pronounced his right name right. G I, E, S E A. Is that the right Giza? I hope I didn't mess that up too bad, Jeff. But he said this, and yeah, this is the sort of thing you couldn't have said a few months ago without getting canceled. But because of the way events have gone and things not working out with the protests, etcetera, you can now say this out loud in public and not get canceled. So I'm going to, I'm going to say it as well. So what Jeff says is the power of framing is incredible. Of course, I've taught you that whoever frames the issue gets to be the owner and controller of that conversation. So if you can frame better, you win the persuasion. He said the power of framing is incredible. For example, what if. And he said in quotes, our problem with police shootings was reframed as our problem with people resisting arrest. Now, it's not a new thought. You know, people have talked about that before. And then he said this is an equally, if not more plausible reframe of the core issue. It's not just equally plausible, it's exactly describing the situation. If you can't give me some examples of people being shot when they're not Resisting arrest. I get that police need to be trained as well as they can. I get that we need to put more attention into non lethal ways. I totally get that police work in general could be better. But I also totally get you could say that about everything. The police are not the one thing that's not operating 100% at all times. That's just everything. We should work on it and make it better. But let's not be unrealistic. You can't take the police training with every situation being different and all the people in it being different. You're just not going to eliminate bad shootings. But you could certainly eliminate 100%. Well, you couldn't eliminate 100% of it, but you could certainly go a long way to teaching people how to not resist arrest or to assume they get caught, they'll be shot. You could come up with a clever saying like resisting arrest will get you killed, but you make it rhyme in some way. So I would say that you couldn't really say that a few weeks ago even because it would sound like you were just a racist. But at this point it's so obvious that there are not any other solutions on the table other than this vague idea of training people better. This vague idea that nobody has anything be done about non lethal force. Better options. There's one thing you could do today. Every single person could tell their kid how to not resist arrest. You could do that today. Where is the national campaign teaching people not to resist arrest? Do you know why that doesn't exist? It's because white people infantilize the black citizens of this country. It's the most racist thing that white people do now. And they do, you know, lots of racism. So there's lots to choose from. But I would say maybe the worst thing. No, definitely the worst thing. Yeah, probably the worst thing is that white people can't say what I just said because they're afraid of getting canceled. And the problem is if you don't learn to stop resisting arrest, you're just going to keep getting shot. There's no way around that. There's no other way that goes. If you keep resisting arrest, doesn't matter if you're white, doesn't matter if you're black, doesn't matter. Probably matters if you're male or female because women are perceived as less dangerous because of the difference in physicality. But certainly if you're not willing to take responsibility, you're going to get more of this. Now why is it that white people can't say what I'M saying without the risk of getting canceled. And as you know, I have just less risk because, you know, I made my money already. And the reason is that white people treat black people like their children. Like fucking children. If you are going to talk to an adult, let's say, let's say, let's say, let's take race out of it, okay? Let's take race completely out of this. Let's say you're a white adult and you see that a whole bunch of other white people are getting shot by police. But every time you look into it, except for the no knock warrant thing, that I think obviously needs to get fixed, but every time you looked into looked like there was some resisting arrest, again, this will be a conversation hypothetically where only white people are police, Only white people are getting arrested. And when they resist, they're getting shot. You're talking to another white person about it. Would you say to them, I think there's a problem with the police? No, you wouldn't. No, you wouldn't. If you were talking to a white person about other white people getting killed by police for resisting arrest, you wouldn't say there's a fucking police problem. Even if there is. Even if there is. And of course, like I said, could be better. It could be more non lethal solutions. You would say to the person you treated like an adult, how about you stop fucking resisting arrest. How about you start there? If you can do that and people are still getting shot, I will march with you. But don't be a child about this. Don't be a child. The problem is obviously the resisting arrest. We all know it. And if you're not willing, if you're a white person and you're not willing to say that as clearly as I'm saying it to another black adult, you're not treating them like an adult. You're not. You're being a fucking racist. If you can't treat an adult black person like an adult, you're a fucking racist. That's it. I don't know how you can see that any other way. Honestly, I don't think there's an argument to that at all. All right? As Michael Shellenberger keeps telling us, we now have Germany and California to show us that the Green New Deal doesn't work. Before, you could have said to yourself, hey, I wonder if the Green New Deal would work. I wonder if we could get rid of all of our nuclear plants and get rid of our gas, gas, energy production stuff, natural gas. I wonder if that would work. You don't have to wonder anymore. We ran two gigantic trials, one in Germany, and it collapsed totally. It just doesn't work. One in California, and it collapsed exactly the same way, meaning that we couldn't keep the lights on. As soon as we got rid of nuclear and started closing down some, it looks like there's some gas plants that are online or targeted to be closed down. We don't have to wonder anymore. The mystery is gone. Now we just have to choose. Keeping the lights on or not keeping the lights on. Those are the choices. We don't have to listen to children telling. And I'm talking about you, Greta. We don't have to listen to children telling us how to run our energy programs anymore, because we tried it. Children. We tried it the child way. Didn't work. If it had only been California, you could say, well, California did it wrong. But it was Germany, too. All right. It was Germany, too. And I hear they're terrific on the coronavirus, so I'm pretty sure they're good on this other stuff. And we do generally think that Germany is good at executing. That sounded like a pun, but it wasn't meant to be. Germany is good at executing. And by executing, I don't mean killing people. That's the pun. But I mean that they're good at building an industry. They're good at managing a situation. They're good at it. And they couldn't make the Green New Deal work. Germany couldn't make the Green New Deal work. How about California? Are there any smart people in California? Yeah. Yeah. Do you know where smart people like to live? California. I'm not saying there are no smart people in other places, but look at Silicon Valley. A lot of smart people. You know, I would think that the IQ of California. Well, averages are misleading. But probably the smartest. A lot of the smartest people in the country are in California. Not all of them, but a lot of them. With all those brains in California and all of those brains in Germany, they couldn't make the Green New Deal work. Didn't even get close, really. Michael Shellenberger has been warning us of that for years, and now he can just do his victory dance. But who can be happy about this? Of course you can't. So it's not really a victory dance, but it is definitely a told you so. Listen to the people. Get it right. If there's somebody who keeps predicting things and they keep getting it right, listen to them next time. All right, that's all for today. Talk to you tomorrow.