Episode 1014 Scott Adams - The Strategy of the Protestors and Where it is Heading
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: ----------- - Our "news" is social programming - Witnessed conversation of police concern over Floyd's breathing - Competing autopsies - Democrat lives are being destroyed by their own team ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
Hey everybody, come on, come on in. It's time. It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams. Good to see you, Omar. Good to see the rest of you. Well, what a night. What a night. You know, you think the news will slow down but the news just keeps on coming. June is always such a crazy month because everyb…
View segment →thing. But you know what really helps? You know what really, really helps? Is the simultaneous sip. And all you need is a copper mug or a glass, a tankard, chalice or stein, a canteen, jug or flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the dopam…
View segment →t in one year, thanks to that sip, there will be less rioting. That's right. You can check it. Check it a year from now. See if I'm not right. A year from now on this date there will be fewer riots because of the simultaneous sip. If you don't know how cause and effect works and you think it's just…
View segment →he world and all their science were wrong and of course I was right. I was right. It was obvious I was right. I didn't have to do any science. It was kind of obvious. But I would just like to claim that for the rest of my life as a thing that in some ways I'm most proud of. Now I'm not most proud o…
View segment →alent in my talent stack was the working on my ego. In other words being able to embarrass myself at an extreme level. I mean that would be extremely embarrassing if it had gone the other way. If it turned out the masks were killing people and there was, you know, it turned out there was lots of con…
View segment →nemy. If you take them out of the mix everything looks different. Here's a question for you. I have not seen any reporting yet on which red states or actually red cities are rioting. Does anybody have any statistics on Republican controlled cities? Are there any? I don't know. Is there even a Repub…
View segment →it being that it's the most important thing in the news. Huh. Well I guess I'll have to look that up. I'm not going to say any more about it until I confirm it's true. So somebody says Newsweek is reporting it, NBC and Wall Street Journal. Okay so it's not headline news is it? Are you seeing anybod…
View segment →hat are the odds that George Floyd coincidentally died just by coincidence at exactly the same time he was being strangled by a cop? And so your common sense says well let me do the odds. The odds of somebody dying by coincidence exactly at the same time they're being strangled is about zero. So the…
View segment →n? Now of course the big risk is that once it's even allowed that you could call domestic people terrorists the moment you allow that you're open to abuse because then there might be some future group that's not so bad that gets declared terrorist organization because it's politically expedient. So…
View segment →actively encouraging it I would say. Yeah Larry Elder has been one of the probably one of the only honest voices in this whole situation because he's a Black man and he's a conservative so he's capable. You know he's got this sort of a safe position where he can say things that are true. I think we…
View segment →rations because it's so expensive to build back these businesses and recover that I would imagine we're talking something in the trillion dollar range just from these riots. Probably trillion. And I can't imagine that reparations would have ever reached a trillion dollars. So somebody said Larry El…
View segment →you what you should think. Nothing like that. You know everybody gets to make their own decisions in this world. I'm only telling you that if you wanted to be effective you need to be effective with white people because otherwise you're just talking to yourself. And Black Lives Matter is a message f…
View segment →Hey everybody, come on, come on in. It's time. It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams. Good to see you, Omar. Good to see the rest of you. Well, what a night. What a night. You know, you think the news will slow down but the news just keeps on coming.
June is always such a crazy month because everybody's schedule changes and the weather changes and suddenly stress is through the roof. And why aren't those kids in school? So I'm gonna guess that for many of you your stress level's a little bit higher. Anybody? Anybody a little bit of stress?
Well, I'm here to bring it down. Let's bring it down. Let's bring down that stress because we will get through this. We get through everything. But you know what really helps? You know what really, really helps? Is the simultaneous sip. And all you need is a copper mug or a glass, a tankard, chalice or stein, a canteen, jug or flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the dopamine hit of the day. The thing that makes everything better. It practically cured the pandemic already. Don't hear much about it. And now the simultaneous sip is going to take on the protests and the riots and the looting. Yeah, watch them go down. Go.
I don't want to get all scientific but I'm willing to guarantee that in one year, thanks to that sip, there will be less rioting. That's right. You can check it. Check it a year from now. See if I'm not right. A year from now on this date there will be fewer riots because of the simultaneous sip. If you don't know how cause and effect works and you think it's just a correlation, well you've got a lot of scientific learning that you need to do.
Well yes, a chalice. That's right. I said chalice, didn't I?
Let's talk about all the news. The top story I think is that the Oakland Zoo had a report that their tigers got out. So that actually happened in my neighborhood. So how would you like to live in the neighborhood where, uh, don't go outside because you know the climate change might kill you and the riots might kill you and one more thing, there's a tiger loose in your neighborhood. That's all we're saying. Just stay safe. Just watch out for Antifa. If anybody throws a brick make sure you duck and watch your back. There might be a tiger.
Turns out that was a fake report and I give great respect to whoever the prankster was who started the rumor that the animals got out of the Oakland Zoo because that's what happened. It was just a rumor. There were no animals that got away from the Oakland Zoo. But for a while, for a while that was a local story. And I don't know what's wrong with me that you know the world can literally be burning but when somebody plays a prank like the tiger got out of the zoo, I don't know, if you can't laugh at that we've already lost civilization.
All right, here's a little update. And do you remember that paper that was published that showed that masks don't work because if you cough through the mask it doesn't stop the virus? Do you remember that paper? Well it turns out that that paper that caused a lot of the experts to say that masks don't work has been retracted because it turns out it was all, it was just all, it wasn't even close to science. It was all so it's been retracted. So how do you feel about your experts? How do you feel about those experts now?
And you know I'm gonna say again I think I was the first public person to call on masks not working. Now if anybody said it before I did I haven't seen it yet because I think it was kind of risky when all the experts, all the experts, literally all the experts were saying that masks don't work and they had science. Look at our science. And by the way I just hope you can appreciate my complete lack of embarrassment that I would say publicly and loudly and often that every expert in the world and all their science were wrong and of course I was right. I was right. It was obvious I was right. I didn't have to do any science. It was kind of obvious. But I would just like to claim that for the rest of my life as a thing that in some ways I'm most proud of.
Now I'm not most proud of it because I realized it because I think there must have been billions of people who said the same thing. There had to be. There had to be a hundred million people who said some version of, um, if the virus is in the droplets and the mask stops droplets, well explain to me how they don't work. How do they not work? Because you touch your face more? Because when I put my mask on I touch my face less. I touch it through the mask but I touch my face less.
So anyway the part I'm proud of is that I had worked on my ego to the point, this is an important lesson actually, I'll embed this little important lesson in my otherwise fun presentation. The important lesson is that I was able to publicly say something that I think anybody else in the world would have been embarrassed to say in public because it's pretty embarrassing to say every scientist and expert in the world is wrong because hey I'm a cartoonist so trust me. And that's what I did. That's exactly what I did. Loudly. Went my way this time. Might not always go my way. But the point is that the key talent in my talent stack was the working on my ego. In other words being able to embarrass myself at an extreme level. I mean that would be extremely embarrassing if it had gone the other way. If it turned out the masks were killing people and there was, you know, it turned out there was lots of confirming science to that or that it didn't work at all. Pretty embarrassing for me. Wasn't an obstacle.
All right, some more stuff. I think the country needs a common enemy because sometimes that's the only thing that stops you from fighting with each other. I have a theory that humans need a certain amount of conflict. In other words we're just, we're just genetically and all the way to our base code of our DNA, we need conflict. We're sort of a conflict species. If we don't have a war we'll start one at home. If we don't have that one at home we'll start one somewhere else. We kind of need to fight. We're just fighting people. And you can either try to deny your nature or you can try to engineer something productive to work with, you know, using your nature in a positive way.
The reason capitalism works is that it understands people are selfish and greedy, right? Capitalism works because it understands people are horrible. We're selfish and greedy. But it's a system that harnesses selfishness and greed and turns it into gold. Best system you could ever have. How about democracy? People are stupid, fearful, tribal and don't care about their neighbors but democracy lets everybody have their little selfish vote and because we accept the credibility of the system it turns all this ignorance and bad intention into gold. You get the United States. You get the Constitution. So a good system can turn horrible things into something good and we do it all the time, right?
You know fertilizer is used to grow, you know, literally poop that comes out of cows is used to grow new food. So you can turn bad things into good things. It's very common. And right now we have all this angry energy. Lots of angry energy in the country. And right now it's just sort of directed in every direction like everybody's angry at just sort of a variety of things. What we need is one good common enemy. I recommend Antifa.
Antifa is the common enemy of Black people. It's a common enemy of anybody who likes civilization because they are anti-civilization. They're literally trying to devolve civilization to the point of starvation. No they don't say it in those words but basically that's it. They don't have an end game. They just want less of everything. And what you get when you destroy things is, you know, that outcome. So I would say that all the people who want economic prosperity, who want a fair world, who want jobs are on the same side. So if you are Black and you want jobs and a good society and all those things that say Martin Luther King would have wanted, if you want any of that stuff Antifa is your mortal enemy. And it's certainly the mortal enemy of the right, the political right. I would say it should be the mortal enemy of the moderate liberals, right?
So I would say Antifa should be our common enemy. If you take them out of the mix everything looks different.
Here's a question for you. I have not seen any reporting yet on which red states or actually red cities are rioting. Does anybody have any statistics on Republican controlled cities? Are there any? I don't know. Is there even a Republican-controlled city anywhere? Is that even a thing? Are there any Republican-controlled cities that are having problems? Why is there no reporting on that? That feels like the most obvious thing you would see reporting on. I don't think I've seen any.
Somebody says what about white supremacy as a common enemy? White supremacy would be a great common enemy if you could find any. If you could find any white supremacy let me know. I'll be your common enemy. I don't like white supremacy but if you find any, find a person or anything like that. But there's not enough of them. You need a common enemy where you can actually find one. Good luck finding a white supremacist except in your imagination and under your bed. I'm sure there are three or four in the country somewhere but otherwise it's mostly imaginary. There's lots of racism. It's just the supremacy part is the part that went away.
And by the way the reason why supremacy doesn't exist, again this is the cartoonist who has no ego and I will shame myself in public by saying you think they're white supremacists? I don't think you've ever talked to one. Because if you talk to anybody who is just a plain racist they will tell you that white people are not supreme. In fact that's a big part of the racism is that they're worried they'll lose ground to groups that they think will just do better than them. So regular racism is the opposite of supremacy. Regular racism, the way at least the way it's expressed by most white Americans who are racist, is a sense of inferiority. If you don't understand that it comes from a sense of, you know, sort of inferiority, don't think you can compete, then you don't really understand the situation. It's in many cases, yeah everybody's different of course, but in many cases it's more like the opposite of white supremacy. It's more like white insecurity, white inferiority, or at least feelings of inferiority that are driving a lot of it. All right, that's just my opinion.
All right, does it seem to you like the news is not showing you the news? I mean more than usual? Yeah I was making this observation that the best video footage we have of the riots and looting are coming from individuals with phones and all of the footage that's just sort of generic and it's behind the lines and it's too far away or it's a shot from a helicopter, like all of the generic stuff is coming from the news networks. Partly because I don't think they can get too close to the action. You know the police keep the professional news crews away. So as a result I'm left with this question. Do you think that the media has made a collective decision? Maybe they've even communicated. Maybe the government's communicated with them. It's possible. Do you think that the media has made a decision to show less of the violence? What do you think? Because it looks like a decision. It looks like there's a decision to just not showcase as much of the violence as they possibly could because it would be really easy for any of the news networks to just run a montage like Andy Ngo. If you're following him you'll see video after video of pretty shocking things coming out of the riots. So it would be easy to find them. I mean any of the networks could easily find all of these videos but they don't run them. You know they do some but it feels like there's some kind of conscious decision and I don't know where it comes from. Maybe they independently just figure it's good citizenship to tamp down the number of visuals that they're doing but I don't know if they are intentionally suppressing the news to manage the situation. Do you feel like that's what's happening?
Somebody says that Tucker aired some of the footage last night. Yeah but of course Tucker is an opinion program, an opinion show, and he can do whatever he wants. So yeah but I think that Fox News as a general statement is also not showing the full degree of it that you can see on Twitter quite easily. So I ask you this question. Does the news business have a responsibility to show you what's happening even if it's awful and even if it would cause you to act in a certain way or does the news business have a responsibility like a government in which they're trying to manage how you act by managing what they show you? Because it looks like they're trying to manage how we act by managing what they show us. You know lowering the amount of graphic images. I don't know if that's a bad thing. Do you? I mean what's your opinion? Is that a bad thing? Because if it's well-meaning and there's no good that could come from it you could argue that that's just being good citizens. You know there's no reason to unnecessarily show you images that will get you worked up and nothing good can come from it. I just have an open question whether it's a conscious decision by the networks.
All right there was a story that I saw yesterday that now I'm wondering if it's true. Can somebody do me a fact check on this? And I would be surprised that somebody hadn't gotten to me directly yesterday. I saw a report which today I'm wondering if it was fake news so I'm hoping somebody could confirm or deny this. I thought I saw that the autopsy showed fentanyl in and also meth in the body of George Floyd. Is that true? Because that would be like a gigantic story that didn't seem to be in the news today. I saw it on Twitter but not in the news.
Let's see while you're trying to come up with that. Fentanyl George Floyd. Because I'd hate to be spreading that rumor if that was fake news. So the headlines say interesting, asphyxiation, but let's see if they also say. Can you tell me? It takes a little while for the, they do this all the time and just to see if there's fentanyl in this story. Family finding neck compression. God I wonder if that was fake news or if they're intentionally not reporting it.
All right I'm looking at your comments to see do you guys know what happened to this news. So I'm seeing a bunch of yeses and truths but it doesn't seem to be showing up in the news. I'm looking at a long article about it. I wonder how far down I have to get before I would mention it being that it's the most important thing in the news. Huh. Well I guess I'll have to look that up. I'm not going to say any more about it until I confirm it's true.
So somebody says Newsweek is reporting it, NBC and Wall Street Journal. Okay so it's not headline news is it? Are you seeing anybody reporting as a headline or is everybody reporting it as somewhere down in a long story? It's just a word. All right there are two autopsies. TMZ reported it then it's probably true.
You know what's weird is that follow TMZ as the standard and be surprised how often it's true. If I say I saw some news on TMZ what's your first reaction? Oh it's probably like the National Enquirer, right? And you're thinking well it could be something that's true but it could be something they just totally made up. That might be your first impression because TMZ is sort of in that entertainment gossipy realm but it's the opposite. I've told you this story before. There was once some fake news about me and it was big headlines for a while. I won't go into it but it was just fake news and TMZ is the only outlet that called me at home to ask me if it was true. Nobody else asked. They're the only ones who asked me if it was true and then I told them the story and then they said oh okay wasn't true and then they didn't run the story on it. So watch how often TMZ is the most accurate news source because they actually don't have, apparently they don't have any motive to make up news because their news is already interesting, right? So TMZ doesn't have to make up news because the only news that they cover is stuff that's interesting no matter what it is. So they end up just by an accident of what their business model is, by accident they end up being the most reliable source of news because they're the only ones who don't have any reason to make up news because it's already interesting or else it wouldn't be in TMZ.
All right so enough of you are confirming the fentanyl story so I said this yesterday in a special video but some of you only watched the morning ones so I'll repeat it. Everything you know about the George Floyd story you have to reassess and here's why. On day one you said to yourself this is obviously murder. I watched it with my own eyes on video and I watched as this white cop put his knee on a black man who was clearly already subdued and kept it there until that man died. We all watched that. Now you say to yourself what are the odds that George Floyd coincidentally died just by coincidence at exactly the same time he was being strangled by a cop? And so your common sense says well let me do the odds. The odds of somebody dying by coincidence exactly at the same time they're being strangled is about zero. So therefore it was the strangulation, the knee, that killed him. Common sense, logic, smart people follow the odds.
Then we find out he had fentanyl in his system. Now not all of you are fentanyl experts. I unfortunately know a lot about fentanyl because my stepson died with it in his system. One of the things I know is that fentanyl makes it difficult to breathe as does meth I believe. And I'm not sure about the meth but fentanyl does. So fentanyl will make you have difficulty breathing. Now if you have difficulty breathing and I heard this from some experts, if you're a fentanyl user, let's say you're a junkie, an addict, you have learned that if you were to fall asleep on fentanyl and your head goes down you might constrict your own breathing and not wake up. In other words you'll just asphyxiate yourself by just falling asleep because your neck's in the wrong position. Now if you were simply drunk and you fell asleep with your neck in the wrong position you would do something like this and you would just wake up. So the difference between being on fentanyl and being just inebriated with some other drug is that if you're inebriated with another drug and your breathing gets cut off it kind of wakes you up so it doesn't kill you. On fentanyl you don't wake up. You just don't breathe. You just don't breathe and then you die because you're not breathing.
So the responsibility of the police is to be smarter than us. The responsibility of the police of course is to be smarter than the public and the public would not know that if somebody had maybe fentanyl in them. And remember the police would assume that a great many people that they stop who have symptoms of being under the influence, the police would know that maybe half of them have fentanyl. The percentage of people who look like they're in that condition who have fentanyl in them is very high. I think maybe half at this point. So if you're a police officer you knew there was maybe a 50 percent chance he had some fentanyl in him even if he had other stuff too. You knew the fentanyl was a breathing issue. You would be concerned about what position you put the perpetrator in because it might exacerbate the breathing issue and you certainly wouldn't want to put your knee on a neck for somebody who had a breathing issue, right? And you wouldn't want to be on their back etc.
But it turns out that we learned today according to the reporting of CNN that the police officers were having a conversation about, and if you haven't heard this it's the biggest news of the day, the police officers, it was reported I think by witnesses, that they had a conversation while they had him down about how to keep him alive and specifically mentioned the risk of sudden death from being in the wrong physical position and being in a certain drug state. Did you hear that? The police who had George Floyd down and were on top of him, the three of them had a conversation which was witnessed in which they talked about making sure he didn't die accidentally by being in the wrong position and being in a drug state. And there's actually a name for it which they used. So in other words the police were medically aware that the perpetrator's position and his drug state was a risk for sudden death and they talked about how to prevent it. And the one who's been charged said he's the one who won the conversation and he said that's why he's on his stomach. In other words he was on his stomach specifically to prevent, and they said it out loud, specifically to prevent accidental sudden death.
Now I see you screaming in the comments nine minutes but he kept his leg up there nine minutes. Now I'm with you. What I watched looked like a crime. What you and I watched looked like a crime and until there's a trial I'm going to assume that there was a crime. But if you think that the guys on the back could tell what was going on, you know if, let me put it this way, if the intentions of the police officers are part of the charge, in other words you have to intentionally kill somebody to get murder one, I think that is disproved. So the evidence disproves intention. In fact the evidence proves that at least verbally they were negotiating on how best to keep him alive. So if there's evidence that these three cops were talking about how best to keep him alive and to prevent the very thing that happened, good luck with the conviction. I think you might get a conviction with the one who had his knee on the neck because you could certainly make the case that no matter what that was the wrong thing to do.
Now that what I've said is that even I as not an expert and not a cop even I knew that somebody who probably or at least had a high likelihood of having fentanyl in them, even I knew there would be a breathing issue so even I would not have taken the risk that those cops took. But would you have known that? How many of you would have known what the cops knew that there was a risk of sudden death in that exact situation? The cops said it out loud there was a risk of sudden death. Yeah I mean they use the technical word but that's what it is.
Somebody says they should have called for paramedics. I think there's plenty. Let me be as clear as I can. I would be amazed if the guy with his knee on the neck doesn't get charged with something that sticks. It just feels like there's got to be something in the way he did his job that was criminal because it looked like it. So I'm not trying to excuse him. I'm predicting that the three cops who were not charged, even when Ellison looked at it, now Ellison of course is the leftiest of the left. You know he's literally Antifa friendly. So Ellison is the attorney general and apparently he even said even Ellison said the other three cops it's going to be a problem because he's seen the evidence and I think he knows that they're not going to get convicted. The other three. The one probably.
So like coronavirus the odds of this being a two-wave problem with a second wave of rioting and looting is really high probably in the ninety percent range because the other three cops almost have almost no chance of being convicted in my opinion or if they get convicted it'll be some minor thing and I don't think that that will satisfy the bloodlust because there is a blood lust here right and people want revenge. They want, they just want revenge.
Now why is it that the Black community wants revenge? Well obviously it's because their lived experience backed up by lots of news reporting is that they're targeted by the police. Now the statistics as I understand them do not back that up. Does CNN report that it's simply not true that Black people are killed at a higher rate than white people during stops where let's say you both have weapons or you don't have weapons but you know apples to apples? Is CNN reporting that there actually is not a real problem that the riots are rioting over? In other words it's an imaginary problem in the sense that if you looked at the statistics it would just disappear. Now because we have the video it's not that part's not imaginary. That's the actual crime it looks like so you have to treat that one as a specific case. But how is CNN handling this? What are they doing to lower the temperature?
Well here's a sentence off of CNN's website. Now remember this is CNN trying to lower the temperature, make sure that the violence stays low. And here's what they say. Police officers are rarely charged with crimes for violence against Black men and even in those rare cases juries have repeatedly shown an unwillingness to convict. Now is that a true statement? I'm sure it is. Wouldn't you say this is a true statement? I mean I haven't seen the statistics but I'm guessing it's true. Sounds true. So let me read again from CNN. Police officers are rarely charged with crimes for violence against Black men. I'll bet that's true right? What'd they leave out?
Here's what I think they left out and they could have at least mentioned it if they wanted to give us good context. How often are the police successfully charged for violence against anyone? Anyone. Is it true that when police are charged with violence against Black Americans that the police are not charged for that but they are charged when they have violence against white Americans if the situations are somewhat? Is that what CNN is telling us? Because by leaving out it seems to me that they should have said just to complete the thought if they believed it was true they would have completed the thought and say police are rarely charged for hurting Black citizens but they're often charged for hurting other citizens. The reason they don't do the second part is because I don't think it's true. I think just police generally don't get charged with hurting people and I'm not even sure that's a big problem because the opposite would be even worse. If police could not do their job because they're too worried about being charged with hurting people I don't know if you'd have an effective police force. You'd probably get riots like you have today.
Here's what the police chief, I think it's the police chief who is responsible for the police officers who were charged, and he told CNN that the silence of the four officers involved in Floyd's death and their inaction made them quote complicit. So complicit you know in quotes. What does it mean to be complicit and is that a crime exactly? And if the crime is silence and inaction how do you square silence and inaction with the fact that it's reported that they were doing the opposite? They were actively saying should we turn him on his side, should we treat it differently, how can we keep him alive? That's the opposite of inaction. That's actually action in which they discussed the best option and in the end they did not find an option that worked.
Now let me complete a thought I realized I didn't complete earlier. Fentanyl in the system creates the possibility that the fentanyl killed him just by itself. There is a non-zero chance that he may have taken some if he had any drugs left over that he didn't want to be busted for. He may have put them in his mouth if he took the drugs he had with him so that he wouldn't be busted. It would be a high likelihood if any of that was fentanyl it would be highly likely that he would have an overdose at exactly that time. In other words while in custody. You know which didn't have to happen at that very moment but the odds of him dying while in custody were very high if, and this is just speculation, he took any drugs to avoid being caught with drugs. Now we don't know that that happened but because there was fentanyl in him that becomes a contributing factor.
So if you were the cop with the knee and you're his attorney how would you argue the case? Here's how I would argue it. I would say I knew that I was only putting enough pressure on him that you know it wouldn't kill him but I didn't know that under these special circumstances that he had these drugs in him. I didn't know that was an extra dangerous situation so it was an accident. I think that's what he'll argue but I think he'll probably lose and it'll be manslaughter anyway.
So we got that going on. Oh it's called excited delirium is what one of the police called it. He was worried. Also known as agitated delirium. Now the delirium part is related to being on drugs and it means that you become suddenly violent or could. So we now have evidence that the police were sort of doing a field diagnosis. You know they're not medically trained but they are trained to recognize situations so that they can do risk management. And one of the police officers was calling it out as maybe this excited delirium or agitated delirium which means that they were recognizing that although the guy seemed nominally not dangerous that it was the nature of his condition that could cause him to flip to dangerous very quickly. So that was actually discussed. And now you understand why three of them were holding him down because they suspected there was a high likelihood that he could turn from friendly to dangerous at a snap because of the condition they were observing. Not because of him or not because he was Black but because of the medical condition they observed. Their case is going to be a lot stronger than you want it to be I'll tell you.
All right so we have two battling autopsies which of course the fake news is reporting incorrectly. So the fake news is reporting that the family's autopsy, the one they paid to have done, shows that the cause of death is homicide whereas the other experts are, yeah I think in both cases it's homicide. Yeah I think in both cases it's homicide. But if you look at the autopsy report, the official one, it says cause of death homicide and then at the bottom it has a footnote that nobody's going to report. You know what the footnote says? The footnote says you should ignore that word homicide. That's what the footnote says. I'm paraphrasing but that's what it says. It says don't take homicide as homicide. It says that right on the same page. It says cause of death homicide and then just right down the page it says just to be clear homicide doesn't mean legally homicide. It just means there was a person involved in the guy died basically. There was another person involved. The actions of the other person you know were somehow implicated in the death. So in other words the coroner report does not say a crime happened and they're clear about that. They say it in direct language. This report does not determine that a crime occurred. It's very important. If CNN, I'll be amazed if CNN ever reports correctly.
Sorry I got a security alert while I was on live stream here but it was just a bird walking across my security camera. You know we live in the kind of time where I don't want to tell you that I'm afraid for my own life because you know my risk is actually pretty low but you know if I talk about things in public you know one worries that crazy people can find you or whatever but of course people like me are taking extra security precautions. So I have this thought in my mind of how that would go down and it doesn't go down well for other people. Let's just put it that way.
All right so we got the battling autopsies. We've got CNN who will probably never mention fentanyl or that its role in this whole thing which is pretty big in all likelihood. We don't know. Nothing is known about this. That's one thing.
All right let me ask you this. I predict, I estimate, so on back of the envelope an estimate, I would say that Antifa has killed more Black Americans or will kill more Black Americans in the coming decade than all of the police action put together. So that's my prediction. So my prediction is that Antifa given their contributions, the riots and the economic devastation which they're causing right now, my estimate is that Antifa if you were to do the math would be directly responsible for maybe I don't know tens of thousands of Black American deaths through the mechanism of extra poverty.
Imagine trying to be a young Black man in an urban place and asking for a job at any future retail organization. Good luck. Good luck. Because if the goal of the riots was to decrease racism of course the opposite happened of course because you know tragically the protesters are going to get very much of the opposite of what they were protesting for. So in the making it worse category this is sort of the world class most making it worse thing you could ever do.
Now I think a lot of the protesters are well intentioned. Even most, maybe most of the protesters are well intentioned. Certainly not the looters. Certainly not Antifa. But a lot of people are well intentioned. Still I think you could do a calculation to figure out how many Black Americans Antifa will kill over the next 10 years compared to the police and I don't think it'll be even close. I think the numbers would be, you know in rough numbers it's going to be something like tens of thousands of Black Americans will be killed by Antifa through poverty and maybe a few hundred over ten years would be killed by the police. So I think it's sort of a few hundred that the police are killing to maybe tens of thousands of Black Americans that Antifa are killing.
And that's not counting the fact that good luck getting a job because of what, you know even if the economy came back you know and if you go in for, let me ask you this. I put this poll up just before I went live so I can check the results and I'll ask you this. If you were an employer would you, and somebody came in for a job in the future and you saw in their social media history that they had participated in the protests in any fashion, in any fashion, it doesn't matter if they were peaceful, doesn't matter if you know they weren't, just in any fashion, would you hire them? Would you hire somebody who participated in the protests knowing that their participation was the shield for the looters and Antifa knowing that that was certainly going to do that? How many of you would hire somebody who had taken part in that? Because I would go on record as saying I would not. And I think that's important. I would never hire anybody who had participated in any fashion in the protest.
Now I might make an exception if it was the first night. You know if somebody came in for a job and said blah blah and I said well I've looked at your social media you were at those protests. If they were to argue to me whoa no no I went the first night. The first night it was really just a protest. It just devolved. I would take that into consideration and I would say oh okay so really if you saw how bad it was after the first night and you adjusted by not going the second night I could live with that because maybe that's a good person, good cause. I saw that it didn't work out, adjusted. Totally I could live with that. But if they went more than one night after we knew that the rioting was happening.
All right so here's the poll I did online. So of course this is not a scientific poll. I said would you hire someone whose social media history showed they were part of this week's riot looting protests? The people who said of course they're good people, three percent. Three percent of the people who answered this. Now of course these are mostly conservatives who answered I think. 79 said no why risk it and 18 said just show me the votes. So really if you get rid of the 18 percent who just wanted to see the results it was 79 to 3 in favor of they would not hire somebody whose social media history showed that they had been even an attendee, even just an attendee at the protests.
So why is the news not reporting that? Why do you have to hear that from me right? The news is no longer the news. The news is now some kind of social programming. You know the news is programming you. It's not just giving you news. So that's a pretty big story.
Now what does it mean to declare Antifa domestic terrorists? Well the funny part about it is that the Democrats have been suckered into supporting a terrorist organization publicly. So Kamala Harris is one of the people raising money for a group that has just been declared domestic terrorists. Now of course if you ask Kamala she'd say no I'm raising money for honest protesters who have a real cause but unfortunately she can't distinguish between who's getting bailed out, who's Antifa and who was a good person who was in the wrong place. So in a very real sense, not even in the political sense but in a real direct accurate factual sense, Kamala Harris is supporting domestic terrorists.
Now Trump has managed to be in a position where his opponents are supporting terrorists who are destroying the country. Do you think he can lose election at this point if things go the way they're going and Trump becomes the name that is associated with the coming crackdown because there has to be a crackdown eventually? He almost certainly will be elected in the biggest landslide in American history because how many Democrats are watching the carnage and watching their own lives being destroyed by their team? A lot. A lot of Democrats just watched their entire lives be destroyed by their own side and they also watched that none of the Republican cities seem to be even affected. It's hard to not notice. And it's hard to not notice that one team is supporting literally terrorists.
Now what do you do with this? I heard Andrew McCarthy say that there are enough laws on the books already that you don't need to define anybody as domestic terrorist. It doesn't have any meaning. But what meaning could it have? We could give it meaning. Congress can make new laws right? We know how to make laws. So let's say we gave it meaning. What kind of meaning? What kind of powers would you want to attribute to the domestic terrorist designation? Now of course the big risk is that once it's even allowed that you could call domestic people terrorists the moment you allow that you're open to abuse because then there might be some future group that's not so bad that gets declared terrorist organization because it's politically expedient. So you can see it would be opening Pandora's box. But we also might not have any choice. In other words the risk reward here might be that well you just have to do it anyway.
So what could it mean to be designated a terrorist organization? I'll give you some suggestions. One thing is it could change the sentencing. So I would argue that if somebody is responsible for the deaths of 10,000 Black Americans you should be considering the death penalty or at the very least life in prison. So I would think that for Antifa given that they're destroying the lives of tens of thousands of people and that they're literally an anti-America treasonous group that something like the death sentence or life in prison would be appropriate. Now I don't think any of these things are going to happen. I'm just, this is just brainstorming.
What about banning phones at protests? Now you can't really ban a phone but you could turn them off. You could track them. What about tracking them? Let me ask you this. I would say that I have a security interest as an American. I have a security interest in knowing who the Antifa people were or indeed knowing who was at the protest in general because I would like to keep them away from me because they would be dangerous to me. I think it's a fair statement to say that anybody who attended the protests, not anybody that's too much, but that the average person who attended the protest would be physically dangerous to me because they might perceive me to be part of the problem. So don't I have an interest in knowing where they are and who they are? The same as I have an interest in knowing where a pedophile lives. If you can publish the address and name of a pedophile because there's something special about that crime that means that if there's something special about some other crime the door is open. So we have a precedent that in unusual circumstances the public has such an interest to know that you can violate the privacy of especially bad people such as pedophiles because the public health interest is just that great.
Now since I'm literally at risk and so are many of you from even being in the same room as somebody from Antifa it's sort of risky at this point. Don't I have a citizen's right to know who they are and where they are and to avoid hiring them? Imagine if you accidentally hired somebody from Antifa and you didn't know it. Well that's not good for your business is it? Might not even be good for your health. So I would say that given that we know the government is tracking all of our phones all the time shouldn't I have a right? Again I'm just brainstorming here. Every idea I toss out I'm well aware that the unintended consequences might be larger than the problem so you don't need to tell me these are good ideas or bad ideas. We're just brainstorming.
So just brainstorming some more. Suppose we just made a list of everybody whose phone was at the protests which would be pretty much everybody because I don't think too many people were there without phones. So shouldn't I always be able to look at the list? Let's say I'm going to hire somebody. Shouldn't I be able to check them against the list of people who attended? Now I could ask questions and say why did you attend? They might say I was shocked by the murder of a Black man. I just wanted to show my participation. And you might say good enough. I agree with that. You're on board. Maybe. It may be up to you. But I do think that the employer is owed that information for health and safety reasons because I think you could identify somebody who's actually Antifa if you're talking to them. It probably isn't that hard to identify Antifa if you're looking for it you know if you know what to look for. So I would just put that out there. The phones of all the people at the protests we could easily identify where they were and when.
Now you could also do it a clever way which is you could say there's a public health information because there's a public health need because of coronavirus. Would you not like to know if you're coming in physical contact with anybody who came in physical contact with thousands of protesters? Yeah I think you have a legitimate right to know if somebody intentionally put themselves in a highly infectious situation for your own health. I think you have a right to know that.
Is it likely that any of these things will happen? I'd say no not likely at all. What if domestic terrorists lose their right to privacy just the way foreign terrorists do? Foreign terrorists don't have any American privacy rights but suppose domestic terrorists just for you know a mental experiment suppose they lost their rights of privacy as well. Their phones were tracked. Their social media was tracked et cetera. Would that happen? I don't know. Just brainstorming.
Suppose we did to domestic terrorists the same thing we do to foreign terrorists which is disrupt their economic network. There are literally GoFundMe accounts for terrorists. What? That's right there are public GoFundMe accounts for Antifa who are domestic terrorists. Why do we allow that? So certainly there's something we could do with the finances, something with the penalties, something with privacy and identification. I don't think any of them will be identified. If you could identify them certainly employers know not to hire them so that's pretty bad.
Now I would say that the news business is I think violating a public trust and this is both the left and the right. I think both the left and right are violating a public trust by not reporting that the true statistics of crime so that they sort of let it stay out there that the Black people are killed at a higher rate by cops. Allowing that to be believed by the public is such an abrogation of responsibility that I would think the FTC could pull their licenses or the FCC or whatever. Whoever. There must be somebody who could pull some kind of a license for that kind of bad behavior because the public is required to know that these protesters are dangerous both in terms of virus and in terms of just being around them. They're terrorists and the people who march with them of course are supportive of terrorists by definition. They don't have to mean they're supportive. Doesn't mean their intention is to be supportive but they are and they made that choice.
So where, and I said it before, where are my data projections? We've got a million estimates for what's going to happen with global warming. We saw all these estimates of who's going to die from the coronavirus. We have estimates and data and graphs for every freaking thing under the sun. The only one that matters today, the only one that matters, is this graph of how many Black people Antifa are killing. Because if the news were reporting that fact or even just talking about the question, imagine that CNN had a panel discussion and let's say it got picked up by the other news and the discussion went like this. Well we've run the numbers and we you know there's some dispute about the estimates because there always are but in general terms it looks like Antifa will kill tens of thousands of Black Americans through their destruction of economic resources and of course make racism much much worse. I mean you can measure that with polls. So where's that? And then of course these people will never get jobs once they're identified and eventually we'll be able to identify them all one way or the other. Where's the news reporting those basic facts? Because those are the basic facts that would reduce the temperature and help things because it would discourage people from continuing to do these things but the news is kind of actively encouraging it I would say.
Yeah Larry Elder has been one of the probably one of the only honest voices in this whole situation because he's a Black man and he's a conservative so he's capable. You know he's got this sort of a safe position where he can say things that are true. I think we've come to the point that the only people who can tell the truth in public are Black conservatives. Think about that. That'll blow your mind when you think about it a little longer. The only people who are allowed even allowed to tell the truth in public are Black conservatives because they can say things white conservatives can't say and the other side is just lying. So how about that?
All right let me just check my notes and see if I missed anything exciting. And we've got police shootings in Las Vegas. Doc DJ Dr Funk Juice reminds me he's a Vegas resident that police were actually targeted last night. Police were targeted and shot last night. Now how much longer are we willing to go?
Oh yeah Jesse Lee Peterson is another truth-teller. Very very interesting man. Very interesting man. Jesse Lee Peterson is one of the most interesting people. I spent a little time with him. He did an interview when I was on a book tour and there is something about that guy that is really, I don't know he's got that X factor. He's just got something going on. I love that guy. Yeah Candace Owens can tell the truth although she gets a lot of social blowback from it.
All right somebody says good to know because I'm a Black conservative and you can tell the truth. Clinton is in court today for what? Scott can you find the laws on shooting terrorists? Well I don't think we're going to see any laws that would allow domestic terrorists to be shot. I think you can rule that out.
Estimate is that eight to ten innocent people are dead from the riots. That's the small number. I think that's worth reporting but the big number is what the economic devastation will do. So I'm going to be advocating that we see those numbers just in the interest of knowing the whole story. Yeah we want to know the whole story. We want to know how many Black people Antifa has killed.
Now I was thinking that maybe the only, if you try to game this out and think what is the, how do you get past this? My best guess is like the coronavirus there are some things where the energy itself just dissipates after a time. So it could be that after a certain amount of destruction the energy just dissipates. That would be cool. But there are certainly smart people such as Rudy Giuliani and people who understand crime and criminal minds and that sort of thing who say that as long as the criminals keep getting away with it, the looting in particular, especially the gang looting which is what makes it safe, they lose in such large numbers that the police wisely just step back because there's nothing you can do. They're so outnumbered and you don't want people to get hurt over merchandise. So the looters have come up with a business model that we don't have any response to because if you don't actually kill them why would they stop? Because you can't arrest them and even if you arrested a few so many would not be arrested it would still be a good risk reward. So right now the business model of the looters is the superior business model. They just come in large numbers. They use social media. They get some stuff. They go home. There's no real risk to them except of course the total destruction of the economy which will catch up to them eventually but the police don't have a response to that.
So if you're trying to say all right so where does this go? One way is that police get better tools you know and maybe they prevent things early and they just figure out to be more clever and more effective. That's certainly some of that will happen meaning that there's no doubt that the police will become more effective and will bring in new tools. We don't know what they are yet but we don't know if they'll be effective I suppose. That doesn't work. Suppose the business model of the looters just is so good that it goes from store to store to store and it's just every night and once they've robbed your town they just pick a new town until all the towns are robbed to nothing. What would stop them? Because it's working. As long as it works why would you stop doing it? People do things that work.
The only thing I can think of and now imagine, imagine if they started shooting people or you know getting tough on protesters. Eventually a Black person would be killed by a policeman. What happens if one Black person no matter what they were doing no matter the situation if one Black person gets killed by one police officer even justified? What's going to happen? The whole cities will just go up in flames. Now you could argue that it shouldn't and blah blah blah but it would you know it would. So I got a feeling that the only way this ends is by taking out Antifa in whatever way that can happen. So Antifa is the weak link meaning that the Black people are not going to support Antifa. Why would they? Because Antifa is literally killing them by tens of thousands right now. You know it'll take a while for the deaths but what they're doing guarantees the deaths of tens of thousands of African Americans. So I would think the Black community would be perfectly happy if the government just went tough on Antifa because that would take enough of the energy out of the situation that maybe that makes your other tools more effective. But you gotta remove energy from the situation and that's the weakest link. So I would say Antifa is a weak link. You gotta go after that hard and then see if you have enough tools to deal with whatever's left.
All right let's see. Legally can the FBI treat the Antifa like the Unabomber, McVeigh or serial killers? I would think so. I would think so yeah. Difference being the immediacy of the actual crime.
Why are there George Floyd inspired protests in Europe? I'm a bit baffled. Somebody says well let me explain that to you. It's not about George Floyd. It's really not. And the European protest proved that. Now which is not to say that there aren't lots of protesters who are there for that explicit reason George Floyd. There are plenty of them but that's not what's causing the problem. It's not the genuine good intention people who want to protest against discrimination and racism. They're not the problem. You know we could have them marching all day long. I'll march with them. It's the looters and the Antifa of course. So Europe has plenty of potential looters. Plenty of potential Antifa. They had their own lockdown. They've got lots of young people. If you've got lots of young people with too much energy especially males they need to go break stuff. Unfortunately if we could be sexist for a moment young males every type nothing racist here but young males of every type everywhere in the world if they don't have anything productive to do like go to work or go to war they're gonna break stuff. It's built into the model. They don't have any, there's just too much energy there and it's not always productive energy.
So somebody says restitution. I don't know what that means but I can tell you that reparations is over as a topic. You know I had been supportive of reparations as at least a conversation. You know my idea of it was not to give cash payments in any way but maybe target improving education in some way as the form of reparations. In other words giving African Americans some kind of advantage for funding you know some kind of college experience as sort of a reparations. Now I'm not saying that was a good idea. I was just sort of trying to brainstorm to find if there was anything any weird combination of ideas that would get something like reparations but would not be odious to the political right. I never came up with one. Certainly I never got close but I was willing to embarrass myself by that conversation here again. Lack of ego is useful because it's a conversation that you get in a lot of trouble. You get a lot into trouble telling conservatives they should at least engage in the conversation of reparations. That's not a comfortable place to be but of course I don't care.
However as I promised you yesterday if there was another night of looting because the protesters are so uncaring, the protesters are so uncaring that they would create a situation that guarantees this death and looting, I said that I would abandon the African-American community in terms of helping. So today that goes into effect. So I would say that the first thing is reparations are off the table. These are the reparations. Let me say that again. This is the reparations. The cost, the economic cost of this will be far greater than whatever checks could ever be written for reparations. All right I mean I would look to an economist to actually do me the math but I think we just had the reparations. These are the reparations because it's so expensive to build back these businesses and recover that I would imagine we're talking something in the trillion dollar range just from these riots. Probably trillion. And I can't imagine that reparations would have ever reached a trillion dollars.
So somebody said Larry Elder can help with that. There's nothing to help with. Reparations are done. Reparations are a historical fact. There's nothing you have to talk about in the future. That conversation is completely gone. And likewise I just can't have any empathy. I would say that while it is true it's always good to start with this. No actually I'm gonna go. I was trying to control my temper this morning because I just don't think it's good to have too much temper. So I'm gonna bring my temperature down and then I'm going to make a criticism of Black Lives Matter.
Compare this. Compare the slogan Black Lives Matter to I Have a Dream. I Have a Dream is just perfect persuasion in every way. Everybody likes it. There's nothing to dislike. Doesn't cause a fight. Nothing like that. When I hear Black Lives Matter does that feel like I Have a Dream? Does Black Lives Matter feel like the same message as Martin Luther King that you know everybody should be equal you know we're heading that direction nobody disagrees let's get there together versus Black Lives Matter? Because what do you hear when you hear Black Lives Matter? I'll tell you what I hear. I hear that white lives don't matter. Now is that what they're saying? No no they're not saying that. They're not saying that at all. But it's what I hear.
When you hear I Have a Dream do you, does that sound anything like that's negative for anybody? No it's explicitly positive for everyone and indeed Martin Luther King included everyone when he talked about it. Everybody white and Black you know you can rise to whatever level. He explicitly included everybody as being valuable. That is why Martin Luther King has a holiday and Black Lives Matter doesn't even have a leader. That's the difference.
Black Lives Matter, the phrase Black Lives Matter is destructive. It's destructive to civilization. I Have a Dream is productive. In a year I'm only talking about persuasion right. So if you're new to these periscopes on a persuasion level the phrase Black Lives Matter makes things worse because what do white people say when they hear it? All lives matter. What do Black people say when they hear all lives matter? You're not taking it seriously. I hate you. Now no I hate you for bringing up a problem that wasn't a problem. No I hate you. Black Lives Matter is a divisive, it's a divisive identity. It's divisive. Now I don't know that it was meant to be. I don't think that anybody thought down and said let me give, let me come up with a good divisive slogan but they came up with one. In fact it might be possibly the worst slogan of all time maybe because of the destruction it's going to cause. So I think Black Lives Matter as a slogan probably will kill lots of Black people. You know I think it will be anti-productive because it creates division which creates more racism which creates everything bad.
If Black Lives Matter simply rebranded as All Lives Matter there wouldn't be any riots. It'd sort of be over. If Black Lives Matter rebranded themselves as All Lives Matter I'd be marching. I'd be marching. But if you want to make it about yourself I think you have every right to do that because every group gets to take care of its community. Every right to do that. Don't have a complaint with that at all. I'm just giving you some persuasion advice. I'm not giving you life advice. Not telling you what you think. I'm not telling you what you should think. Nothing like that. You know everybody gets to make their own decisions in this world. I'm only telling you that if you wanted to be effective you need to be effective with white people because otherwise you're just talking to yourself. And Black Lives Matter is a message from Black people to Black people. When white people hear it it's divisive. If you want to be divisive just start some protests that you know are going to bring Antifa and looters and let us film all that so that we can make racism much much worse because that's what happened.
So I would say that Black Lives Matter is a failed destructive organization with good intentions. Good intentions for you know the vast majority of people who are associated. All good intentions but execution, solid failure.
All right that's it for today. Let's see how this plays out. And I told you that I wasn't going to do evening periscopes anymore because the coronavirus shutdown was winding down but then I got a curfew last night even where I live. I live in like the safest place in the whole world. Even I had a curfew. Freaking curfew. I broke the curfew of course. I'm not going to pay attention to a curfew in my town but yeah it's not like there's any risk around here but the fact that there was a curfew makes me think maybe I should do some evening periscopes but I haven't decided on that yet.
All right people get very angry when you say all lives matter. It's a divisive slogan. That's all for now. I'll talk to you later.
hey everybody come on come on in it's time it's time for coffee with scott adams good to see you omar good to see the rest of you well what a night what a night you know you think the news will slow down but the news just keeps on coming june is always such a crazy month because everybody's schedule changes and the weather changes and suddenly stresses through the roof and why aren't those kids in school so i'm gonna guess that for many of you your stress levels a little bit higher anybody anybody a little bit of stress well i'm here to bring it down let's bring it down let's bring down that stress because we will get through this we get through everything but you know what really helps you know what really really helps is the simultaneous zip and all you need is a copper mugger glass a tanker chalice or stein a canteen jugger flask a vessel of any kind fill it with your favorite liquid i like coffee and join me now for the dopamine head of the day the thing that makes everything better it practically cured the pandemic already don't hear much about it and now the simultaneous hip is going to take on the protests and the riots and the looting yeah watch them go down go i don't want to get all scientific but i'm willing to guarantee that in one year thanks to that sip there will be less rioting that's right you can check it check it a year for now see if i'm not right a year from now on this date there will be fewer riots because of the simultaneous sip if you don't know how cause and effect works and you think it's just a correlation well you've got a lot of scientific learning that you need to do well yes a chalice that's right i said jealous didn't i let's talk about all the news the top story i think is that the oakland zoo had a report that their tigers got out so that actually happened in my neighborhood so how would you like to live in the neighborhood where uh don't go outside because you know the climate change might kill you and the riots might kill you and one more thing there's a tiger loose in your neighborhood that's all we're saying just stay safe just watch out for antifa if anybody throws a brick make sure you duck and watch your back there might be a tiger turns out that was a fake report and i give a great respect to whoever the prankster was who started the rumor that the animals got out of the oakland zoo because that's what happened it was just a rumor there were no animals that got away from the oakland zoo but for a while for a while that was a local story and i don't know what's wrong with me that you know the world can literally be burning but when somebody plays a prank like the tiger got out of the zoo i don't know if you can't laugh at that we've already lost civilization all right here's a little update and do you remember that that paper that was published that showed that masks don't work because if you cough through the mask it doesn't stop the virus do you remember that paper well it turns out that that paper that caused a lot of the experts to say that masto work has been uh retracted because it turns out it was all it was just all it wasn't even close to science it was all so it's been retracted so how do you feel about your experts how do you feel about those experts now and you know i'm gonna say again i think i was the first public person to call on mass not working now if anybody said it before i did i haven't seen it yet because i think it was kind of risky when all the experts all the experts literally all the experts were saying that maths don't work and they had science look at our science and and by the way i just hope you can appreciate my complete lack of embarrassment that i would say publicly and loudly and often that every expert in the world and all their science were wrong and of course i was right i was right it was obvious i was right i didn't have to do any science it was kind of obvious but i would just like to claim that for the rest of my life as a thing that in some ways i'm most proud of now i'm not most proud of it because i realized it because i think there must have been billions of people who said the same thing there had to be there had to be a hundred million people who said some version of um if the virus is in the droplets and the mask stops droplets well explain to me how they don't work how do they not work because you touch your face more because when i put my mask on i touch my face less i touch it through the mask but i touch my face last so anyway the part i'm proud of is that i had worked on my my ego to the point this is an important lesson actually i'll i'll embed this little important lesson in my otherwise fun presentation the important lesson is that i was able to publicly say something that i think anybody else in the world would have been embarrassed to say in public because it's pretty embarrassing to say every scientist and expert in the world is wrong because hey i'm a cartoonist so trust me and that's what i did that's exactly what i did loudly went my way this time might not always go my way but the point is that the the key uh talent in my talent stack was the working on my ego in other words being able to embarrass myself at an extreme level i mean that would be extremely embarrassing if it had gone the other way if it turned out the mass were killing people and there was you know it turned out there was lots of confirming science to that or that it didn't work at all pretty embarrassing for me wasn't an obstacle all right some more stuff i think the country needs a common enemy because sometimes that's the only thing that stops you from fighting with each other i have a theory that humans need a certain amount of conflict in other words we're just we're just genetically and all the way to our base code of our dna we need conflict we're sort of a conflict species if we don't have a war we'll start one at home if we don't have that one at home we'll start one somewhere else we kind of need to fight we're just fighting people and you can either try to deny your nature or you can try to engineer something productive to work with you know using your nature in a positive way the reason capitalism works is that it understands people are uh selfish and greedy right capitalism works because it understands people are horrible we're selfish and greedy but it's a system that harnesses selfishness and greed and turns it into gold best system you could ever have how about democracy people are stupid fearful tribal and don't care about their neighbors but democracy lets everybody have their little selfish vote and because we accept the credibility of the system it turns all this ignorance and bad intention into gold you get the united states you get the constitution so a good system can turn horrible things into something good and we do it all the time right you know fertilizer is used to grow you know literally poop that comes out of cows is used to grow new food so you can turn bad things into good things it's very common and right now we have all this angry energy lots of angry energy in the country and right now it's just sort of directed in every every direction like everybody's angry at just sort of a variety of things what we need is one good common enemy i recommend antifa antifa is the common enemy of black people it's a common enemy of anybody who likes civilization because they are anti-civilization they're they're literally trying to devolve civilization uh to the point of starvation no they don't say it in those words but basically that's it they don't have an end game they just want less of everything and what you get when you destroy things is you know that outcome so i would say that all the people who want economic prosperity who want a fair world who want jobs are on the same side so if you are black and you want jobs and a good society and all those things that say martin luther king would have wanted if you want any of that stuff antifa is your mortal enemy and uh it's certainly the mortal enemy of the right the political right i would say it should be the the mortal enemy of the the the liberal um let's say the moderate liberals right so i would say antifa should be our common enemy if you take them out of the mix everything looks different here's a question for you i have not seen any reporting yet on which red states or actually red i guess red cities are riding does anybody have any statistics on republican controlled cities are there any i don't know is there even a republican-controlled city anywhere is that even a thing are there any republican-controlled cities that are having problems why is there no reporting on that that feels like the most obvious thing you would see reporting on i don't i don't think i've seen any somebody says what about white supremacy as a common enemy white supremacy would be a great common enemy if you could find any right if you could find any uh white supremacy let me know i'll i'll be your common enemy i don't like white supremacy but if you find any find a person or anything like that but there's not enough of them you need you need a common enemy where you can actually find one good luck finding a white supremacist except in your imagination and under your bed i'm sure there are three or four in the country somewhere but otherwise it's mostly imaginary there's lots of racism it's just the supremacy part is the part that went away um and by the way the reason why supremacy doesn't exist again this is the cartoonist who has no ego and i will shame myself in public by saying you think they're white supremacists i don't think you've ever talked to one because if you talk to anybody who is just a plain racist they will tell you that white people are not supreme in fact that's a big part of the racism is that they're worried they'll lose ground to groups that they think will just do better than them so regular racism is the opposite of supremacy regular racism the way at least the way it's expressed by most white americans who are racist is a sense of inferiority if you don't understand that that it comes from a sense of you know sort of inferiority don't think you can compete then you don't really understand the situation it's in many cases yeah everybody's different of course but in many cases it's more like the opposite of white supremacy it's more like the it's more like white insecurity white inferiority or at least feelings of inferiority that are driving a lot of it all right that's just my opinion all right does it seem to you like the news is not showing you the news i mean more than usual yeah i was making this observation that the best of video footage we have of the riots and looting are coming from individuals with phones and all of the footage that's just sort of generic and it's behind the lines and it's too far away or it's or a shot from a helicopter like all all of the generic stuff is coming from the news networks partly because i don't think they can get too close to the action you know the police keep the the professional news crews away so as a result i'm left with this question do you think that the media has made a collective decision maybe they've even communicated maybe the government's communicated with them it's possible do you think that the media has made a decision to show less of the violence what do you think because it looks like a decision it looks like there's a decision to just not showcase as much of the violence as they possibly could because it would be really easy for any of the news networks to just run a montage like andy now you know ngo no if you're following him you'll see video after video of pretty shocking things coming out of the out of the riots so it would be easy to find them i mean any of the networks could easily find all of these videos but they don't run them you know they they do some but it feels like there's some kind of conscious decision and i don't know where it comes from maybe they independently just figure it's good good citizenship to you know tamp down the number of visuals that they're doing but um i don't know if they are intentionally suppressing the news to manage the situation do you feel like that's what's happening um oh somebody says that tucker aired some of the footage last night yeah but of course tucker is an opinion program but an opinion show and he can do whatever he wants so um yeah but i i think that fox news as a general statement is also not showing the the full degree of it that you can see on twitter quite easily so i ask you this question does the news business have a responsibility to show you what's happening even if it's awful and even if it would cause you to act in a certain way or does the news business have a responsibility like a government in which they're trying to manage how you act by managing what they show you because it looks like they're trying to manage how we act by managing what they show us you know lowering the amount of graphic images i don't know if that's a bad thing do you i mean what's your opinion is that a bad thing because if it's well-meaning and there's no good that could come from it you could argue that that's just being good citizens you know there's no reason to unnecessarily show you images that will get you worked up and nothing good can come from it i just have an open question whether it's a conscious decision by the networks all right there was a story that i saw yesterday that now i'm wondering if it's true can somebody do me a fact check on this and i would be surprised that somebody hadn't gotten to me directly yesterday i saw a report which today i'm wondering if it was fake news so i'm hoping somebody could confirm or deny this i i thought i saw that the autopsy showed fentanyl in and also meth in the uh in the body of george floyd is that true because that would be like a gigantic story that didn't seem to be in the news today i saw it on twitter but not in the news let's see while you're trying to come up with that fentanyl george floyd because i'd hate to be i'd hate to be spreading that rumor if that was fake news so the headlines say interesting asphyxiation but let's see if they also say can you tell me uh look it takes a little while for the they do this all the time and just to see if there's fentanyl in this story uh family finding neck compression god i wonder if that was fake news or if they're if they're uh intentionally not reporting it all right i'm looking at your comments to see do you guys know what happened to this news so i'm seeing a bunch of yeses and truths but it doesn't seem to be showing up in the news i'm looking at a long article about it i wonder how far down i have to get before i would mention it being that it's the most important thing in the news huh well i guess i'll have to look that up i'm not going to say any more about it until i confirm it's true so so somebody says uh newsweek is reporting it nbc and wall street journal okay so it's not it's not headline news is it uh are you seeing anybody reporting as a headline or is everybody reporting it as a somewhere down in a long story it's just a a word all right there are two autopsies uh oh tmz reported it then it's probably true you know what's weird is that uh follow use the standard and be surprised how often is true if i say i saw some news on tmz what's your first reaction oh it's probably like the national enquirer right and you're thinking well it could be something that's true but it could be something they just totally made up that might be your first impression because it's a you know tmz is sort of in that entertainment gossipy realm but it's the opposite i've told you this story before there was once some fake news about me and it was big headlines for a while i won't go into it but it was just fake news and tmz is the only outlet that called me a home to ask me if it was true nobody else asked they're the only ones who asked me if it was true and then i told them the story and then they said oh okay wasn't true and then they didn't run the story on it so watch how often tmz is the most accurate news source because they actually don't have apparently they don't have any motive to make up news because their news is already interesting right so tmz doesn't have to make up news because the only news that they cover is stuff that's interesting no matter what it is so uh they end up just by an accident of what their business model is by accident they end up being the most reliable source of news because they're the only ones who don't have any reason to make up news because it's already interesting or else it wouldn't be in tmc all right um so i s enough of you are confirming the fentanyl story so i said this yesterday in a special video but some of you only watched the morning ones so i'll repeat it the everything you know about the george floyd story you have to reassess and here's why on day one you said to yourself this is obviously murder i watched it with my own eyes on video and i watched as this white cop that chocolate on my arm what a mess i am uh i watched as this white cop put his knee on a black man who was clearly already subdued and kept it there until that man died we all watched that now you say to yourself what are the odds that george floyd coincidentally died just by coincidence at exactly the same time he was being strangled by a cop and so your common sense says well let me do the odds the odds of somebody dying by coincidence exactly at the same time they're being strangled is about zero so therefore it was the strangulation the knee that killed him common sense logic smart people follow the odds then we find out he had fentanyl in his system now not all of you are fentanyl experts i unfortunately know a lot about fentanyl because my stepson died with it in his system one of the things i know is that fentanyl makes it difficult to breathe as does meth i believe and i'm not sure about the math but fentanyl does so fentanyl will make you have have difficulty breathing now if you have difficulty breathing and i i heard this from some experts if you're a fentanyl user let's say you're a junkie an addict you have learned that if you were to fall asleep on fentanyl and your head goes down you might constrict your own breathing and not wake up in other words you'll just asphyxiate yourself by just falling asleep because your neck's in the wrong position now if you were simply drunk and you fell asleep with your neck in the wrong position you would do something like this and you would just wake up so the difference between being on fentanyl and being just inebriated with some other drug is that if you're inebriated with another drug and your breathing gets cut off it kind of wakes you up so it doesn't kill you on fentanyl you don't wake up you just don't breathe you just don't breathe and then you die because you're not breathing so uh the the responsibility of the police is to be smarter than us scott is an idiot we'll get rid of you um the responsibility of the police of course is to be smarter than the public and the public would not know that if somebody had maybe fentanyl in them and remember the police would assume that a great many people that they stop who have you know symptoms of being under the influence the police would know that maybe half of them have fentanyl the the percentage of people who look like they're in that condition who have fentanyl in them is very high i i think maybe half at this point so if you're a police officer you knew there was maybe a 50 chance he had some fentanyl in him even if he had other stuff too you knew the fentanyl was a breathing issue you would be concerned about how what position you put the perpetrator in because it might exacerbate the breathing issue and you certainly wouldn't want to put your a knee on a neck for somebody who had a breathing issue right and you wouldn't want to be on their back etc but it turns out that we learned today according to the reporting of cnn that the police officers were having a conversation about and if you haven't heard this it's the biggest news of the day the police officers it was reported i think by witnesses that they had a conversation while they had him down about how to keep him alive and specifically mentioned the risk of sudden death from being in the wrong physical position and being in a certain drug state did you hear that the police who had george floyd down and were on top of him the three of them had a conversation which was witnessed in which they talked about making sure he didn't die accidentally by being in the wrong position and being in a drug state and there's actually a name for it which they used so in other words the police were medically aware that the f that the perpetrator's position and his drug state was a risk for sudden death and they talked about how to prevent it and the and the one who's been charged said he's the one who who won the conversation and he said that's why he's on his stomach in other words he was on his stomach specifically to prevent and they said it out loud specifically to prevent accidental sudden death now i see you screaming in the comments nine minutes but he kept his leg up there nine minutes now i'm with you what i watched look like a crime what you and i watched look like a crime and until there's a trial i'm going to assume that there there was a crime but if you think that the guys on the back could tell what was going on you know if let me put it this way if the intentions of the police officers are part of the charge in other words you have to intentionally kill somebody to get murder one i think the that is disproved so the evidence disproves intention in fact the evidence proves that at least verbally they were negotiating on how best to keep him alive so if there's evidence that these three cops were talking about how best to keep him alive and to prevent the very thing that happened good luck with the conviction i think you might get a conviction with the one who had his knee on the neck because you could certainly make the case that no matter what that was the wrong thing to do now that what i've said is that even i as not an expert and not a cop even i knew that somebody who probably or at least had a high likelihood of having fentanyl in them even i knew there would be a breathing issue so even i would not have taken the risk that those cops took but would you have known that how many of you would have known what the cops knew that there was a risk of sudden death in that exact situation the cops said it out loud there was a risk of sudden death yeah i mean they use the the technical word but that's what it is somebody says they should have called for paramedics i think there there's plenty uh let me be as clear as i can i would be amazed if the guy with his neck with his knee on the neck doesn't get charged with something that sticks it just feels like there's got to be something in the way he did his job that was criminal because it looked like it so i'm not trying to excuse him i'm predicting and i'm predicting that the three cops who were not charged even when ellison looked at it now ellison of course is the leftist of he's the leftiest left you know he's literally antifa friendly so uh ellison is the attorney general and apparently he even said even ellison said the other three cops it's going to be a problem because he's seen the evidence and i think he knows that they're not going to get convicted the other three the one probably so like coronavirus the odds of this being a two-wave problem with a second wave of rioting and looting is really high probably in the ninety percent range because the other three cops almost have almost no chance of being convicted in my in my opinion or if they get convicted it'll be some minor thing and i don't think that that will satisfy the bloodlust because there is a blood lust here right and people want revenge they want they just want revenge now why is it that the black community wants revenge well obviously it's because they their lived experience backed up by lots of news reporting is that they're that they're targeted by the police now the statistics as i understand them do not back that up does do the news networks report that it's simply not true that black people are killed at a higher rate than white people during during stops where let's say you both have weapons or you don't have weapons but you know apples to apples is cnn reporting that there actually is not not a real problem that the riots are riding over in other words it's an imaginary problem in the sense that if you looked at the statistics it would just it would disappear now because we have the video it's not that part's not imaginary that's the actual crime it looks like so you have to treat that one as a specific case but how is cnn handling this what are they doing to lower the temperature well here's this here's a sentence off of cnn's website now remember this is cnn trying to lower the temperature make sure make sure that the violence stays low and here's what they say police officers are rarely charged with crimes for violence against black men and even in those rare cases juries have repeatedly shown an unwillingness to convict now is that a true statement i'm sure it is wouldn't you say this is a true statement i mean i haven't seen the statistics but i'm guessing it's true sounds true so let me read again from cnn police officers are rarely charged with crimes for violence against black men i'll bet that's true right what's what'd they leave out here's what i think they left out and and they could have at least mentioned it if they wanted to give us good context how often are the police successfully charged for violence against anyone anyone is it is it true that when when police are charged with violence against black americans that the police are not charged or they they're not charged for that but they are charged when they have violence against white americans if the situations are somewhat is that what cnn is telling us because by leaving out it seems to me that they should have said just to complete the thought if they believed it was true they would have completed the thought and say police are rarely charged for hurting black citizens but they're often charged for hurting other citizens the reason they don't do the second part is because i don't think it's true i think just police generally don't get charged with hurting people and i'm not even sure that's a big problem because the opposite would be even worse if if police could not do their job because they're too worried about you know being charged with hurting people i don't know if you'd have an effective police force you'd probably get riots like you have today um here's what the police chief aaron dondo i think it's the police chief who is responsible for the police officers who were charged and he told cnn that the silence of the four officers involved in floyd's death and their inaction made them quote complicit so complicit you know in quotes what does it mean to be complicit and is that a crime exactly and and if the crime is silence and inaction how do you square silence and inaction with the fact that it's reported that they were doing the opposite they were actively saying should we turn them on his side should we treat it differently how can we keep them alive that's the opposite of an action that's actually action in which they discussed the best option and in the end they did not find an option that worked now uh let me let me complete a thought i realized i didn't complete earlier fentanyl in the system creates the possibility that the fentanyl killed him just by itself there there is a non-zero chance that he may have taken some if he had any drugs left over that he didn't want to be busted for he may have put him in his mouth if he took the drugs he had with him so that he wouldn't be busted it would be a high likelihood if any of that was fentanyl it would be highly high likelihood that he would have an overdose at exactly that time in other words while in custody you know which didn't have to happen at that very moment but the odds of him dying while in custody were very high if and this is just speculation he took any drugs to avoid being caught with drugs now we don't know that that happened but because there was fentanyl in him that becomes a contributing factor so if you were the the cop with the knee and you're his attorney how would you argue the case here's how i would argue it i would say i knew that i was only putting enough pressure on him that you know it wouldn't kill him but i didn't know that under these special circumstances that he had these drugs in him i didn't know that was an extra dangerous situation so it was an accident i think that's what he'll argue but i think he'll probably lose and it'll be manslaughter anyway um so we got that going on oh it's called excited delirium is what one of the police called it he was worried uh also known as agitated delirium now the delirium part is related to being on drugs and it means that you you become suddenly violent or could so so we now have an evidence that the police were sort of doing a field diagnosis you know they're not medically trained but they are trained to recognize situations so that they can do risk management and one of the police officers was was calling it out as maybe this excited delirium or agitated delirium which means that they were recognizing that although the guy seemed nominally not dangerous that it was the nature of his condition that could cause him to flip to dangerous very quickly so that was actually discussed and now you understand why three of them were holding him down because they suspected there was a high likelihood that he could turn from friendly to dangerous uh at you know at a snap because of the condition they were observing not because of him or not because he was black but because of the the medical condition they observed their case is going to be a lot stronger than you want it to be i'll tell you um yeah all right so we have two battling autopsies which of course the fake news is reporting incorrectly so the fake news is reporting that the family's autopsy the one they paid to have done shows that the cause of death is homicide whereas the other experts are yeah i think i think in both cases it's homicide yeah i think in both cases it's homicide but if you look at the autopsy report the official one it says cause of death homicide and then at the bottom it has a footnote that nobody's going to report you know what the footnote says the footnote says you should ignore that word homicide that's what the footnote says i'm paraphrasing but that's what it says it says don't take homicide as homicide it says that right on the same page it says cause of death homicide and then just right down the page it says just to be clear homicide doesn't mean legally homicide it just means there was a person involved in the guy died basically there was another person involved the actions of the other person you know were somehow implicated in the death so in other words the coroner report does not say a crime happened and they're clear about that they say it in direct language this report does not determine that a crime occurred it's very important if cnn i'll be amazed if cnn ever reports correctly uh sorry i got a security i got a security alert while i was on live stream here but it was just a bird walking across my security camera you know we live in the kind of time where um i don't want to tell you that uh i i'm afraid of for my own life because you know my risk is actually pretty low but you know if i talk about things in public you know one worries that that crazy people can can find you or whatever but uh of course people like me are taking extra security precautions so i i have this thought in my mind of how that would go down and it doesn't go down well for other people let's just put it that way all right um so we got the battling autopsies we've got cnn who will probably never mention fentanyl or that its role in this whole thing which is pretty big in all likelihood we don't know nothing nothing is known about this that's one thing all right um let me tell you let me just use this let me ask you this uh i predict not i predict i estimate so on back of the envelope and estimate i would say that antifa has killed more black americans or will kill more black americans in the coming decade than all of the police action put together so that's my prediction so my prediction is that antifa given given their contributions the riots and the economic devastation which they're causing right now my estimate is that antifa if you were to do the math would be directly responsible for maybe i know tens of thousands of black american deaths through the mechanism of extra poverty imagine trying to be a young black man in an urban place and asking for a job at any future retail organization good luck good luck because if the goal of the riots was to decrease racism of course the opposite happened of course because you know tragically there the protesters are going to get very much of the opposite of what they were protesting for so in the making it worse category this is sort of the world class most making it worse thing you could ever do now i think a lot of the protesters are well intentioned even most maybe most of the protesters are well intentioned certainly not the looters uh certainly not antifa but a lot of people are well intentioned still i think you could do a calculation to figure out um how many black americans antifa will kill over the next 10 years compared to the police and i don't think it'll be even close i think the numbers would be you know in rough numbers it's going to be something like tens of thousands of black americans will be killed by antifa through poverty and maybe a few hundred over ten years would be killed by the police so i think it's sort of a few hundred that the police are killing to maybe tens of thousands of black americans that anti-follow killing and that's not counting that's not counting the fact that good luck getting a job because of what you know even if the economy came back you know and if if you go in for let me ask you this i put this uh poll up just before i went live so i can i can check the results and i'll ask you this if you were an employer would you and you somebody came in for a job in the future and you saw in their social media history that they had participated in the protests in any fashion in any fashion it doesn't matter if they were peaceful doesn't matter if you know they weren't just in any fashion would you hire them would you hire somebody who participated in the protests knowing that their participation was the shield for the looters and antifa knowing that that was certainly going to to do that how many of you would hire somebody who had taken part in that because i would go on record as saying i would not um and i think that's important i would never hire anybody who had participated in any fashion in the protest now i might make an exception if they if it was the first night you know if somebody came in for a job and said blah blah and i said well i've looked at your social media you were at those protests if they were to argue to me whoa no no i went the first night the first night it was really just a protest it just devolved i would take that into consideration and i would say oh okay so really if you if you saw how bad it was after the first night and you adjusted by not going the second night i could live with that because maybe that's a good person good cause i saw that it didn't work out adjusted totally i could live with that but if they went more than one night after we knew that the writing was happening uh all right so here's here's the poll i did online so of course this is not a scientific poll i said would you hire someone whose social media history showed they were part of this week's riot looting protests uh the people who said of course they're good people three percent three percent of the people who answer this now of course these are mostly conservatives who answered i think uh 79 said no why risk it and 18 said just show me the votes so really if you get rid of the 18 percent who just wanted to see the results it was 79 to 3 in favor of they would not hire somebody whose social media history showed that they had been even an attendee even just an attendee at the protests so why is the news not reporting that why do you have to hear that from me right the news is no longer the news the news is now some kind of social programming you know the news is programming you it's not uh it's not just giving you news so that's a pretty big story now what does it mean to declare antifa domestic terrorists well the the funny part about it is that the democrats have been suckered into supporting a a terrorist organization publicly so kamala harris is you know one of the people you know raising money for for a group that has just been declared domestic terrorists now of course if you ask kamala she'd say no i'm raising money for uh you know honest protesters who have a real cause but unfortunately she can't distinguish between who's getting bailed out who's antifa and who was a good person who was in the wrong place so in a very real sense not even in the political sense but in a real direct accurate factual sense camaleris is supporting domestic terrorists now trump has managed to be in a position where his opponents are supporting terrorists who are destroying the country do you think he can lose election at this point if things go the way they're going and trump becomes the the name that is associated with the coming crackdown because there has to be a crackdown eventually he almost certainly will be elected in the biggest landslide in american history because how many democrats are watching the carnage and watching their own lives being destroyed by their team a lot a lot of democrats just watched their entire lives be destroyed by their own side and they also watched that none of the republican cities seem to be even affected it's hard to not notice um and it's hard to not notice that one team is supporting literally terrorists now what do you do with this uh i heard andrew mccarthy say that there are enough laws on the books already that you don't need to define anybody as domestic terrorist it doesn't have any meaning but what meaning could it have we could give it meaning congress can make new laws right we know how to make laws so let's say we gave us a meaning what kind of meaning what kind of powers would you want to attribute to the domestic terrorist designation now of course the big risk is that once once it's even allowed that you could call domestic people terrorists the moment you allow that you're open to abuse because then there might be some future group that's not so bad that gets declared terrorist organization because it's politically expedient so you can see it would be opening uh pandora's box but we also might not have any choice in other words the risk reward here might be that well you just have to do it anyway so what could it mean to be designated a terrorist organization i'll give you some suggestions one thing is it could change the sentencing so i would argue that if somebody is responsible for the deaths of 10 000 black americans you should be considering the death penalty or at the very least life in prison so i would think that for antifa um given that they're destroying the lives of tens of thousands of people and that they're literally an anti-america treasonous group that something like the death sentence or life in prison would be appropriate now i don't think any of these things are going to happen i'm just this is just brainstorming what about banning phones at protests now you can't really ban a phone but you could turn them off you could track them what about tracking them let me ask you this i would say that i have a security interest as an american i have a security interest in knowing who the anti-fa people were or indeed knowing who was at the protest in general because i would like to keep them away from me because they would be dangerous to me i think it's a fair statement to say that anybody who attended the protests not anybody that's too much but that the average person who attended the protest would be physically dangerous to me because they might perceive me to be you know part of the problem so don't i have an interest in knowing where they are and who they are the same as i have an interest in knowing where a pedophile lives if you can publish the address and name of a pedophile because there's something special about that crime that means that if there's something special about some other crime the door is open so we have a precedent that in unusual circumstances the public has such an interest to know that you can violate the privacy of especially bad people such as pedophiles because the the public health interest is just that great now since i'm literally at risk and so are many of you from even being in the same room as somebody from antifa it's sort of risky at this point don't i have a uh a citizen's right to know who they are and where they are and and to avoid higher than hiring them imagine if you accidentally hired somebody from antifa and you didn't know it well that's not good for your business is it might not even be good for your health so i would say that given that the we know the government is tracking all of our phones all the time shouldn't i have a right again i'm just brainstorming here every idea i toss out i'm well aware that the unintended consequences might be larger than the problem so you don't need to tell me these are good ideas or bad ideas we're just brainstorming so just brainstorming some more suppose we just made a list of everybody whose phone was at the protests which would be pretty much everybody because i don't think too many people were there without phones so shouldn't i always be able to look at the list let's say i'm going to hire somebody shouldn't i be able to check them against the list of people who attended now i could ask questions and say why did you attend they might say i was shocked by the murder of a of a black man i just wanted to show my show my participation and you might say good enough i agree with that you're on you're on board maybe i may be up to you but i do think that the employer is owed that information for health and safety reasons because i think you could identify somebody who's actually anti-fog if you're talking to them it probably isn't that hard to identify antifa if you're looking for it you know if you know what to look for so i would just put that out there the the phones of all the people at the protests we could easily identify where where they were and when now you could also do it a clever way which is you could say there's a public health information because there's a public health need because of coronavirus would you like would you not like to know if you're coming in physical contact with anybody who came in physical contact with thousands of protesters yeah i think you have a legitimate right to know if somebody intentionally put themselves in a highly infectious situation for your own health i think you have a right to know that is it likely that any of these things will happen i'd say no not likely at all what if domestic terrorists lose their right to privacy just the way foreign terrorists do foreign terrorists don't have any american privacy rights but supposed to domestic terrorists just for you know a mental experiment suppose they lost their rights of privacy as well their phones were tracked their social media was was tracked uh et cetera would that happen i don't know just brainstorming suppose we did to domestic terrorists the same thing we do to uh foreign terrorists which is disrupt their economic network there are literally gofundme accounts for terrorists what that's right there are public gofundme accounts for antifa who are domestic terrorists why do we allow that so certainly there's something we could do with the finances something with the penalties something with privacy and identification i don't think any of them who will be identified if you could identify them certainly employers know not to hire them so that's pretty bad now i would say that the news business is um i think violating a public trust and this is both the left and the right i think both the left and right are violating a public trust by not reporting that the true statistics of crime so that they sort of let it stay out there that the black people are killed at a higher rate by cops allowing that to be believed by the public is such a an abrogation of responsibility that i would think the ftc could pull their licenses or the fcc or whatever whoever there must be somebody who could pull some kind of a license for that kind of bad behavior because the public is required to know that these pr protesters are dangerous both in terms of virus and in terms of just being around them they're terrorists and the people who march with them of course are supportive of terrorists by definition they don't have to mean they're supportive doesn't mean their intention is to be supportive but they are and they made that choice um so where and and i said it before where are my data projections we've got a million estimates for what's going to happen with global warming we saw all these estimates of who's going to die from the coronavirus we have estimates and data and graphs for every freaking thing under the sun the only one that matters today the only one that matters is this graph of how many black people antifa are killing because if the if the news we're reporting that fact or even just talking about the question imagine that cnn had a panel discussion and let's say it got picked up by the other news and the discussion went like this well we've run the numbers and we you know there's some there's some dispute about the estimates because they're always there always are but in general terms it looks like antifa will kill tens of thousands of black americans through their destruction of economic resources and and of course make racism much much worse i mean you can measure that with polls so where's that and then of course these people will never get jobs once they're identified and eventually we'll be able to identify them all one way or the other where's the news reporting those basic facts because those are the basic facts that would reduce the temperature and help things because it would discourage people from continuing to do these things but the news is kind of actively encouraging it i would say yeah larry elder has has been one of the uh probably one of the only honest voices in this this whole situation because he's a black man and he's a conservative so he's capable you know he's got this uh sort of a safe position where he can say things that are true you know i think we've come to the point that the only people who can tell the truth in public are black conservatives think about that that'll blow your mind when you think about it a little longer the only people who are allowed even allowed to tell the truth in public are black conservatives because they can say things white conservatives can't say and the other side is just lying so how about that um all right let me just check my notes and see if i missed anything exciting um and we've got police shootings in las vegas uh doc d.j dr funk juice reminds me uh he's a vegas resident that police were actually targeted last night police were targeted and shot last night now how much longer are we willing to go oh yeah jessie lee peterson is another truth-teller very very interesting man very interesting man jesse lee peters is one of the most interesting people i spent a little time with him he did an interview when i was on a book tour and there is something about that guy that that is really i don't know he's got that x factor he's just got something going on i love that guy um yeah candace owens can tell the truth although she gets she gets a lot of social blow back from it all right somebody says good to know because i'm a black conservative and you can tell the truth clinton is in court today for what uh scott can you find the laws on shooting terrorists well i don't think we're going to see any laws that would allow domestic terrorists to be shot i think you can rule that out estimate is that eight to ten innocent people are dead from the riots that's the small number i think that's worth reporting but the big number is what the economic devastation will do so i'm going to be advocating that we see those numbers just in the interest of knowing the whole story yeah we we want to know the whole story uh we want to know how many black people antifa is killed now i was thinking that maybe the only if if you try to game this out and think what is the how do you get past this my best guess is like the coronavirus there are some things where the energy itself just dissipates after a time so it could be that after a certain amount of destruction the energy just dissipates that would be cool but there are certainly smart people such as rudy giuliani and people who understand crime and criminal minds and that sort of thing who say that as long as the criminals keep getting away with it the looting in particular especially the gang looting which is what makes it safe they lose in such large numbers that the police wisely just step back because there's nothing you can do they're so outnumbered and you don't want people to get hurt over merchandise so the looters have come up with a business model that we don't have any response to because if you don't actually kill them why would they stop because you can't arrest them and even if you rested a few so many would not be arrested it would still be a good risk reward so right now the business model of the looters is the superior business model they just come in large numbers they use social media they get some stuff they go home there's no real risk to them except of course the total destruction of the economy which will catch up to them eventually but the police don't have a response to that so if you're trying to say all right so where does this go one way is that police get better tools you know and maybe they prevent things early and they just figure out to be more clever and more effective that's certainly some of that will happen meaning that there's no doubt that the police will become more effective and will will bring in new tools we don't know what they are yet but we don't know if they'll be effective i suppose that doesn't work suppose the business model of the looters just is so good that it goes from store to store to store and it's just every night and once they've robbed your town they just pick a new town until all the towns are robbed to nothing what would stop them because it's working as long as it works why would you stop doing it people do things that work the only thing i can think of and now imagine imagine if they started shooting people at or you know getting tough on protesters eventually a black person would be killed by a policeman what happens if one black person no matter what they were doing no matter the situation if one black person gets killed by one police officer even justified what's going to happen the whole the whole cities will just go up in flames now you could argue that it shouldn't and blah blah blah but it would you know it would so i got a feeling that the only way this ends is by taking out antifa in whatever way that can happen so antifa is the weak link meaning that the black people are not going to support antifa why would they because antifa is literally killing them by tens of thousands right now you know it'll take a while for the deaths but what they're doing guarantees the deaths of tens of thousands of african americans so i would think the black community would be perfectly happy if the you know if the government just went tough on antifa because that would take enough of the energy and of the situation that maybe that makes your other tools more effective but you gotta you gotta remove energy from the from the situation and that's the weakest link so i would say antifa is a weak link you gotta go after that hard and then see if you have enough tools to deal with whatever's left uh all right let's see legally can the fbi treat the antifa like the unibomber mcvay or serial killers i would think so i would think so yeah difference being the immediacy of the actual crime why are there george floyd inspired protests in europe i'm a bit baffled somebody says well let me explain that to you it's not about george floyd it's really not and the european uh protest proved that now which is not to say that there aren't lots of protesters who are there for for that explicit reason george floyd there are plenty of them but that's not what's causing the problem it's it's not the genuine good intention people who want to protest against discrimination and and racism they're not the problem you know we could have them marching all day long i'll march with them it's the looters and and the antifa of course so europe has plenty of potential looters plenty of potential antifa they had their own lockdown they've got lots of young people if you've got lots of young people with too much energy especially males they need to go break stuff unfortunately if we could be sexist for a moment uh young males every type nothing racist here but young males of every type everywhere in the world if they don't have anything productive to do like go to work or go to war they're gonna break stuff it's it's built into the model they don't have any there's just too much energy there and it's not always productive energy so um somebody says restitution i don't know what that means but i can tell you that reparations is over as a as a topic you know i i had been supportive of reparations as at least a conversation you know my idea of it was not to give cash payments in any way but maybe target improving education in some way as as the form of reparations in other words giving african americans some kind of advantage for funding you know some kind of college experience as sort of a reparations now i'm not saying that was a good idea i was just sort of trying to brainstorm to find if there was anything any any weird combination of ideas that would get something like reparations but would not be odious to the political right i never came up with one certainly i never got close but i was willing to i was willing to embarrass myself by that conversation here again lack of ego is useful because it's a conversation that you get in a lot of trouble you get a lot into trouble telling conservatives they should at least engage in the conversation of reparations that's not a comfortable place to be but of course i don't care however as i promised you yesterday if there was another night of uh looting because the protesters are so uncaring the protesters are so uncaring that they would create a situation that guarantees this death and looting i said that i would abandon the african-american community in terms of helping so so today that goes into effect so i would say that the first thing is uh reparations are off the table these are the reparations let me say that again this is the reparations the the cost the economic cost of this will be far greater than whatever checks could ever be written for reparations all right i mean i would look to an economist to actually do me the math but i think we just had the reparations these are the reparations because it's so expensive to build back these businesses and recover that i would imagine we're talking something in the trillion dollar range just from these riots probably trillion and i can't imagine that reparations would have ever reached a trillion dollars so uh somebody said at latimer can help with that there's nothing to help with reparations are done reparations are are an historical fact there's nothing you have to talk about in the future that conversation is completely gone uh and likewise i i just can't have any empathy i would say that while it is true it's always good to start with this no actually i'm gonna go i was trying to control my temper this morning because i just don't think it's good to have too much temper so i'm gonna bring my temperature down and then i'm going to make a criticism of black lives matter compare this compare the slogan black lives matter to i have a dream i have a dream as just perfect persuasion in every way everybody likes it there's nothing to dislike doesn't cause doesn't cause a fight nothing like that when i hear black lives matter does that feel like i have a dream does black lives matter feel like the same message as martin luther king that you know everybody should be equal you know we're heading that direction nobody disagrees let's get there together versus black lives matter because what do you hear when you hear black lives matter i'll tell you what i hear i hear that white white lives don't matter now is that what they're saying no no they're not saying that they're not saying that at all but it's what i hear when you hear when you hear i have a dream do you have does that sound anything like that's negative for anybody no it's a it's explicitly positive for everyone and indeed martin luther king included everyone when he talked about it everybody white and black you know you can rise to whatever level he explicitly included everybody as being valuable that is why martin luther king has a holiday and black lives matter doesn't even have a leader that's the difference black lives matter um the the phrase black lives matter is destructive it's destructive to civilization i have dream is productive in a year i'm only talking about persuasion right so if you're new to if you're new to these periscopes on a persuasion level the phrase black lives matter makes things worse because what do white people say when they hear it all lives matter what do black people say when they hear all lives matter you're not taking it seriously i hate you now no i hate you for bringing up a problem that wasn't a problem no i hate you black lives matter is a divisive it's a divisive uh identity it's divisive now i don't know that it was meant to be i don't think that anybody thought down and said let me give let me come up with a good divisive slogan but they came up with one in fact it might be uh possibly the worst slogan of all time maybe because of the destruction it's going to cause so i think black lives matter as a slogan probably will kill lots of black people you know i i think it will be anti-productive because it creates division which creates more racism which creates everything bad if black lives matter simply rebranded as all lives matter there wouldn't be any riots it'd sort of be over if black lives matter rebranded themselves as all lives matter i'd be marching i'd be marching but if you want to make it about yourself um i think you have every right to do that because every group gets to take care of its community every right to do that don't have a complaint with that at all i'm just giving you some persuasion advice i'm not giving you you know life advice not telling you what you think i'm not telling you what you should think nothing like that you know everybody gets to make their own decisions in this world i'm only telling you that if you wanted to be effective you need to be effective with white people because otherwise you're just talking to yourself and black lives matter is a message from black people to black people when white people hear it it's divisive if you want to be divisive uh just start some protests that you know are going to bring antifa and looters and let us film all that so that we can make racism much much worse because that's what happened so i would say that black lives matter is a failed destructive organization with good intentions good intentions for you know the vast majority of people who are who are associated all good intentions but execution uh solid failure all right that's for today uh let's see how this plays out and um i told you that i wasn't going to do evening periscopes anymore because the coronavirus shutdown was winding down but then i got a curfew last night even where i live i live in like the the safest place in the whole world even i had a curfew freaking curfew i broke the curfew of course i'm not going to pay attention to a curfew in my town but uh yeah it's not like there's any risk around here but the fact that there was a curfew makes me think maybe i should do some evening periscopes but i haven't decided on that yet all right um yeah people get very angry when you say all lives matter it's a divisive slogan that's all for now i'll talk to you later
[Music]
hey everybody
come on come on in it's time it's time
for coffee with scott adams good to see
you omar
good to see the rest of you well what a
night
what a night you know you think the news
will slow down but the news just
keeps on coming june is always such a
crazy month
because everybody's schedule changes and
the weather changes
and suddenly stresses through the roof
and why aren't those kids in school
so i'm gonna guess that for many of you
your stress levels a little bit higher
anybody anybody a little bit of stress
well i'm here to bring it down let's
bring it down
let's bring down that stress because we
will get through this
we get through everything but you know
what really helps
you know what really really helps is the
simultaneous zip and all you need
is a copper mugger glass a tanker
chalice or stein a canteen jugger flask
a vessel of any kind
fill it with your favorite liquid i like
coffee and join me now for the dopamine
head of the day the thing that makes
everything better
it practically cured the pandemic
already don't hear much about it
and now the simultaneous hip is going to
take on the protests and the riots and
the looting
yeah watch them go down go
i don't want to get all scientific but
i'm willing to guarantee that in one
year
thanks to that sip there will be less
rioting that's right you can check it
check it a year for now
see if i'm not right a year from now on
this date
there will be fewer riots because of
the simultaneous sip if you don't know
how cause and effect works
and you think it's just a correlation
well you've got a lot of scientific
learning that you need to do
well yes a chalice that's right i said
jealous
didn't i let's talk about all the news
the top story i think is that the
oakland zoo
had a report that their tigers got out
so that actually happened in my
neighborhood so
how would you like to live in the
neighborhood where
uh don't go outside because you know
the climate change might kill you and
the riots might kill you
and one more thing
there's a tiger loose in your
neighborhood
that's all we're saying just stay safe
just watch out for
antifa if anybody throws a brick
make sure you duck and
watch your back there might be a tiger
turns out that was a fake report
and i give a great respect to whoever
the prankster was
who started the rumor that the animals
got out of the oakland zoo
because that's what happened it was just
a rumor there were no animals that got
away from the oakland zoo
but for a while for a while that was a
local story
and i don't know what's wrong with me
that you know the world can literally be
burning
but when somebody plays a prank like the
tiger got out of the zoo
i don't know if you can't laugh at that
we've already lost civilization all
right here's a little update
and do you remember that that paper that
was published
that showed that masks don't work
because if you cough through the mask it
doesn't stop the virus
do you remember that paper well it turns
out that that paper that
caused a lot of the experts to say that
masto work
has been uh retracted because it turns
out it was all
it was just all it wasn't even
close to science
it was all so it's been
retracted
so how do you feel about your experts
how do you feel about those experts now
and you know i'm gonna say again
i think i was the first public person
to call on mass not working
now if anybody said it before i did i
haven't seen it yet
because i think it was kind of risky
when all the experts all the experts
literally all the experts were saying
that maths don't work
and they had science look at our science
and and by the way i just hope you can
appreciate
my complete lack of embarrassment
that i would say publicly and loudly and
often that every expert in the world and
all their science were wrong
and of course i was right i was right it
was obvious i was right
i didn't have to do any science it was
kind of obvious
but i would just like to claim that for
the rest of my life
as a thing that in some ways i'm most
proud of
now i'm not most proud of it because i
realized it because i think there must
have been billions of people who said
the same thing
there had to be there had to be a
hundred million people
who said some version of um
if the virus is in the droplets and the
mask stops droplets well explain to me
how they don't work
how do they not work because you touch
your face more
because when i put my mask on i touch my
face less
i touch it through the mask but i touch
my face last
so anyway the part i'm proud of
is that i had worked on my
my ego to the point this is an important
lesson actually i'll i'll embed
this little important lesson in my
otherwise
fun presentation the important lesson is
that i was able to
publicly say something that i think
anybody else in the world would have
been
embarrassed to say in public because
it's pretty embarrassing
to say every scientist and expert in the
world is wrong
because hey i'm a cartoonist so trust me
and that's what i did that's exactly
what i did loudly
went my way this time might not always
go my way
but the point is that the the key
uh talent in my talent stack
was the working on my ego in other words
being able to embarrass myself
at an extreme level i mean that would be
extremely
embarrassing if it had gone the other
way if it turned out the mass were
killing people and there was
you know it turned out there was lots of
confirming science to that
or that it didn't work at all pretty
embarrassing for me
wasn't an obstacle all right some more
stuff
i think the country needs a common enemy
because sometimes
that's the only thing that stops you
from fighting with each other
i have a theory that humans need a
certain amount of conflict
in other words we're just we're just
genetically
and all the way to our base code of our
dna
we need conflict we're sort of a
conflict
species if we don't have a war we'll
start one at home
if we don't have that one at home we'll
start one somewhere else
we kind of need to fight we're just
fighting people
and you can either try to deny
your nature or you can try to engineer
something productive to work with
you know using your nature in a positive
way the reason capitalism works
is that it understands people are uh
selfish and greedy
right capitalism works because it
understands people are horrible
we're selfish and greedy but it's a
system that harnesses selfishness and
greed
and turns it into gold best system you
could ever have
how about democracy people are stupid
fearful tribal
and don't care about their neighbors
but democracy lets everybody have their
little selfish vote
and because we accept the credibility of
the system it turns all this
ignorance and bad intention into gold
you get the united states you get the
constitution
so a good system can turn
horrible things into something good and
we do it all the time
right you know fertilizer is used to
grow
you know literally poop that comes out
of cows
is used to grow new food so you can turn
bad things into good things it's very
common
and right now we have all this angry
energy
lots of angry energy in the country and
right now it's just sort of
directed in every every direction like
everybody's angry
at just sort of a variety of things
what we need is one good common enemy
i recommend antifa
antifa is the common enemy of black
people
it's a common enemy of anybody who likes
civilization
because they are anti-civilization
they're they're literally
trying to devolve civilization uh to the
point of starvation
no they don't say it in those words but
basically that's it they don't have an
end game they just want less of
everything
and what you get when you destroy things
is
you know that outcome so i would say
that all the people who want
economic prosperity who want
a fair world who want
jobs are on the same side
so if you are black and you want jobs
and a good society and all those things
that say martin luther king would have
wanted
if you want any of that stuff antifa is
your mortal
enemy and
uh it's certainly the mortal enemy of
the right the political right
i would say it should be the the mortal
enemy of the
the the liberal um let's say the
moderate liberals
right so i would say antifa should be
our common enemy
if you take them out of the mix
everything looks different
here's a question for you i have not
seen any reporting yet on which
red states or actually red i guess red
cities
are riding does anybody have any
statistics
on republican controlled cities
are there any i don't know is there even
a republican-controlled city anywhere
is that even a thing are there any
republican-controlled cities that are
having
problems why is there no reporting on
that that feels like the most obvious
thing you would see reporting on i don't
i don't think i've seen any
somebody says what about white supremacy
as a common enemy
white supremacy would be a great common
enemy if you could find any
right if you could find any uh white
supremacy
let me know i'll i'll be your common
enemy
i don't like white supremacy but if you
find any
find a person or anything like that
but there's not enough of them you need
you need a common enemy where you can
actually find one
good luck finding a white supremacist
except in your imagination and
under your bed i'm sure there are three
or four in the country somewhere
but otherwise it's mostly imaginary
there's lots of racism
it's just the supremacy part is the part
that went away
um and by the way the reason why
supremacy doesn't exist
again this is the cartoonist who has no
ego
and i will shame myself in public by
saying
you think they're white supremacists i
don't think you've
ever talked to one because if you talk
to anybody who is just a plain racist
they will tell you that white people are
not supreme
in fact that's a big part of the racism
is that they're worried they'll lose
ground to groups that they think
will just do better than them so regular
racism
is the opposite of supremacy regular
racism
the way at least the way it's expressed
by most
white americans who are racist is a
sense of inferiority
if you don't understand that that it
comes from a sense of
you know sort of inferiority don't think
you can compete
then you don't really understand the
situation it's in many cases
yeah everybody's different of course but
in many cases it's more like the
opposite of white supremacy
it's more like the it's more like white
insecurity
white inferiority or at least feelings
of inferiority that are driving a lot of
it
all right that's just my opinion all
right does it seem to you like the news
is not showing you the news
i mean more than usual yeah i was making
this observation that the best
of video footage we have of the riots
and looting
are coming from individuals with phones
and all of the footage that's just sort
of generic and it's behind the lines and
it's too far away
or it's or a shot from a helicopter like
all
all of the generic stuff is coming from
the news networks
partly because i don't think they can
get too close to the action you know the
police keep the
the professional news crews away so
as a result i'm left with this question
do you think that the media has made a
collective decision
maybe they've even communicated maybe
the government's communicated with them
it's possible
do you think that the media has made a
decision to show less of the violence
what do you think because it looks like
a decision
it looks like there's a decision to just
not showcase
as much of the violence as they possibly
could because it would be really easy
for
any of the news networks to just run a
montage
like andy now you know ngo
no if you're following him you'll see
video after video of pretty
shocking things coming out of the out of
the riots
so it would be easy to find them i mean
any of the networks
could easily find all of these videos
but they don't run them
you know they they do some but it feels
like there's some kind of conscious
decision and i don't know where it comes
from maybe they independently just
figure it's good
good citizenship to you know tamp down
the number of
visuals that they're doing but
um i don't know if they are
intentionally suppressing the news
to manage the situation do you feel like
that's what's happening
um oh somebody says that tucker aired
some of the footage last night
yeah but of course tucker is an opinion
program but an opinion show and he can
do whatever he wants
so um yeah but i i think that fox news
as a
general statement is also not showing
the the full degree of it that you can
see on twitter quite easily
so i ask you this question does the news
business have a responsibility to show
you what's happening
even if it's awful and even if it would
cause you to act in a certain way
or does the news business have a
responsibility like a government
in which they're trying to manage how
you act by managing what they show you
because it looks like they're trying to
manage how we act
by managing what they show us you know
lowering the amount of
graphic images i don't know if that's a
bad thing
do you i mean what's your opinion is
that a bad thing
because if it's well-meaning and there's
no good that could come from it
you could argue that that's just being
good citizens you know there's no reason
to unnecessarily show you
images that will get you worked up and
nothing good can come from it
i just have an open question whether
it's a conscious decision by the
networks all right
there was a story that i saw yesterday
that now i'm wondering if it's true
can somebody do me a fact check on this
and i would be surprised that somebody
hadn't gotten to me directly
yesterday i saw a report which today i'm
wondering if it was fake news
so i'm hoping somebody could confirm or
deny this
i i thought i saw that the autopsy
showed fentanyl
in and also meth in the uh in the body
of
george floyd is that true
because that would be like a gigantic
story
that didn't seem to be in the news today
i saw it on twitter but not in the news
let's see
while you're trying to come up with that
fentanyl
george floyd
because i'd hate to be i'd hate to be
spreading that rumor if that was fake
news
so the headlines say
interesting asphyxiation but let's see
if they also say
can you tell me uh look it takes a
little while
for the they do this all the time
and just to see if there's fentanyl in
this story
uh family finding
neck compression god i wonder if that
was fake news
or if they're if they're uh
intentionally not reporting it
all right i'm looking at your comments
to see do you guys know
what happened to this news so i'm seeing
a bunch of yeses and truths
but it doesn't seem to be showing up in
the news
i'm looking at a long article about it
i wonder how far down i have to get
before i would mention it being that
it's the most important thing in the
news
huh well i guess i'll have to look that
up i'm not going to say any more about
it
until i confirm it's true so
so somebody says uh newsweek is
reporting it nbc
and wall street journal okay so it's not
it's not headline news is it
uh are you seeing anybody reporting as a
headline
or is everybody reporting it as a
somewhere down
in a long story it's just a a word
all right there are two autopsies
uh oh tmz reported it then it's probably
true you know what's weird
is that uh follow use the standard
and be surprised how often is true
if i say i saw some news on tmz what's
your first reaction
oh it's probably like the national
enquirer right
and you're thinking well it could be
something that's true but it could be
something they just totally made up
that might be your first impression
because it's a you know tmz is sort of
in that entertainment
gossipy realm but it's the opposite
i've told you this story before there
was once some fake news about me
and it was big headlines for a while i
won't go into it but it was just fake
news
and tmz is the only outlet
that called me a home to ask me if it
was true
nobody else asked they're the only ones
who asked me if it was true
and then i told them the story and then
they said oh okay wasn't true
and then they didn't run the story on it
so
watch how often tmz is the most accurate
news source because they actually don't
have apparently they don't have any
motive to make up news
because their news is already
interesting right so tmz doesn't have to
make up news
because the only news that they cover is
stuff that's interesting
no matter what it is so uh
they end up just by an accident of what
their business model is
by accident they end up being the most
reliable source of news
because they're the only ones who don't
have any reason to make up news
because it's already interesting or else
it wouldn't be in tmc
all right um
so i s enough of you are confirming the
fentanyl story so i said this yesterday
in a special video but some of you only
watched the morning ones
so i'll repeat it the everything you
know about the
george floyd story you have to reassess
and here's why on day one
you said to yourself this is obviously
murder
i watched it with my own eyes on video
and i watched
as this white cop
that chocolate on my arm what a mess i
am uh
i watched as this white cop put his knee
on a black man who was clearly already
subdued
and kept it there until that man died we
all watched that
now you say to yourself what are the
odds
that george floyd coincidentally died
just by coincidence at exactly the same
time he was being strangled by a cop
and so your common sense says well let
me do the odds
the odds of somebody dying by
coincidence
exactly at the same time they're being
strangled is about
zero so therefore it was the
strangulation the knee that killed him
common sense logic smart people follow
the odds
then we find out he had fentanyl in his
system
now not all of you are fentanyl experts
i unfortunately
know a lot about fentanyl because my
stepson died with it in his system
one of the things i know is that
fentanyl makes it difficult to breathe
as
does meth i believe and i'm not sure
about the math but fentanyl does
so fentanyl will make you have
have difficulty breathing now
if you have difficulty breathing and i i
heard this from some experts if you're a
fentanyl user let's say you're a junkie
an addict
you have learned that if you were to
fall asleep on fentanyl and your head
goes down
you might constrict your own breathing
and not wake up
in other words you'll just asphyxiate
yourself
by just falling asleep because your
neck's in the wrong position
now if you were simply drunk and you
fell asleep with your neck in the wrong
position
you would do something like this and you
would just wake up
so the difference between being on
fentanyl and being just
inebriated with some other drug is that
if you're inebriated with another drug
and your breathing gets cut off it kind
of wakes you up
so it doesn't kill you on fentanyl you
don't wake up
you just don't breathe you just don't
breathe and then you die because you're
not breathing
so uh the
the responsibility of the police is to
be smarter than us
scott is an idiot
we'll get rid of you um
the responsibility of the police of
course is to be smarter than the public
and the public would not know
that if somebody had maybe fentanyl in
them and remember
the police would assume that a great
many people that they stop
who have you know symptoms of being
under the influence
the police would know that maybe half of
them have fentanyl
the the percentage of people who look
like they're in that condition
who have fentanyl in them is very high
i i think maybe half at this point
so if you're a police officer you knew
there was maybe a 50
chance he had some fentanyl in him even
if he had other stuff too
you knew the fentanyl was a breathing
issue
you would be concerned about how what
position you put the perpetrator in
because it might exacerbate the
breathing issue and you certainly
wouldn't want to put your
a knee on a neck for somebody who had a
breathing issue right
and you wouldn't want to be on their
back etc
but it turns out that we learned today
according to the reporting
of cnn that the police officers
were having a conversation about and if
you haven't heard this
it's the biggest news of the day the
police officers it was reported
i think by witnesses that they had a
conversation
while they had him down about how to
keep him alive
and specifically mentioned the risk
of sudden death from being in the wrong
physical position
and being in a certain drug state
did you hear that the police who had
george floyd down and were on top of him
the three of them had a conversation
which was witnessed
in which they talked about making sure
he didn't die
accidentally by being in the wrong
position
and being in a drug state and there's
actually a name for it which they used
so in other words the police were
medically aware
that the f that the perpetrator's
position and his drug
state was a risk for sudden death
and they talked about how to prevent it
and the and the one who's been charged
said he's the one who who won the
conversation
and he said that's why he's on his
stomach in other words
he was on his stomach specifically to
prevent
and they said it out loud specifically
to prevent
accidental sudden death
now i see you screaming in the comments
nine minutes but he kept his leg up
there nine minutes
now i'm with you what i watched
look like a crime what you and i watched
look like a crime and until there's a
trial
i'm going to assume that there there was
a crime
but if you think that the guys
on the back could tell what was going on
you know if let me put it this way if
the
intentions of the police officers are
part of the charge
in other words you have to intentionally
kill somebody to get murder one i think
the that is disproved so the evidence
disproves intention in fact the evidence
proves that at least verbally
they were negotiating on how best to
keep him alive
so if there's evidence that these three
cops were talking about how best
to keep him alive and to prevent the
very thing that happened
good luck with the conviction i think
you might get a conviction
with the one who had his knee on the
neck because you could
certainly make the case that no matter
what that was the wrong thing to do
now that what i've said is that even i
as not an expert and not a cop
even i knew that somebody who probably
or at least had a high likelihood of
having
fentanyl in them even i knew there would
be a breathing issue
so even i would not have taken the risk
that those cops took
but would you have known that how many
of you would have known what the cops
knew
that there was a risk of sudden death in
that exact situation
the cops said it out loud there was a
risk of sudden death
yeah i mean they use the the technical
word but that's what it is
somebody says they should have called
for paramedics
i think there there's plenty
uh let me be as clear as i can i would
be amazed
if the guy with his neck with his knee
on the neck
doesn't get charged with something that
sticks it just feels like there's got to
be something
in the way he did his job that was
criminal because it looked like it
so i'm not trying to excuse him i'm
predicting
and i'm predicting that the three cops
who were not charged
even when ellison looked at it now
ellison of course is the leftist of
he's the leftiest left you know he's
literally antifa
friendly so uh ellison is the attorney
general
and apparently
he even said even ellison said
the other three cops it's going to be a
problem
because he's seen the evidence and i
think he knows
that they're not going to get convicted
the other three the one
probably so like coronavirus the odds of
this
being a two-wave problem with a second
wave of rioting and looting
is really high probably in the ninety
percent range
because the other three cops almost have
almost no chance of being convicted in
my
in my opinion or if they get convicted
it'll be some minor thing
and i don't think that that will satisfy
the bloodlust
because there is a blood lust here right
and people want revenge they want
they just want revenge now why is it
that the black community
wants revenge well obviously it's
because they
their lived experience backed up by
lots of news reporting is that they're
that they're
targeted by the police
now the statistics as i understand them
do not back that up does do the news
networks
report that it's simply not true
that black people are killed at a higher
rate than white people during
during stops where let's say you both
have weapons or you don't have weapons
but you know apples to apples
is cnn reporting that
there actually is not not a real problem
that the riots
are riding over in other words it's an
imaginary problem
in the sense that if you looked at the
statistics it would just it would
disappear
now because we have the video it's not
that part's not imaginary that's the
actual crime
it looks like so you have to treat that
one as a
specific case but how is cnn
handling this what are they doing to
lower the
temperature well here's this
here's a sentence off of cnn's website
now remember
this is cnn trying to lower the
temperature make sure
make sure that the violence stays low
and here's what they say
police officers are rarely charged with
crimes for violence against black men
and even in those rare cases juries have
repeatedly shown an unwillingness to
convict
now is that a true statement i'm sure it
is
wouldn't you say this is a true
statement i mean i haven't seen the
statistics
but i'm guessing it's true sounds true
so
let me read again from cnn police
officers are rarely charged with crimes
for violence against
black men i'll bet that's true
right what's what'd they leave
out here's what i think they left out
and and they could have at least
mentioned it if they wanted to give us
good context
how often are the police successfully
charged
for violence against anyone anyone
is it is it true that
when when police are charged with
violence against black americans
that the police are not charged or they
they're not charged for that
but they are charged when they have
violence against white americans
if the situations are somewhat is that
what cnn is telling us
because by leaving out
it seems to me that they should have
said
just to complete the thought if they
believed it was true they would have
completed the thought and say
police are rarely charged for hurting
black citizens
but they're often charged for hurting
other citizens
the reason they don't do the second part
is because i don't think it's true
i think just police generally don't get
charged with hurting people
and i'm not even sure that's a big
problem because the opposite would be
even worse
if if police could not do their job
because they're too worried about
you know being charged with hurting
people i don't know if you'd have an
effective police force you'd probably
get
riots like you have today
um here's what the police chief
aaron dondo i think it's the police
chief
who is responsible for the police
officers who were charged
and he told cnn that the silence of the
four
officers involved in floyd's death and
their inaction
made them quote complicit so complicit
you know in quotes what does it mean to
be complicit
and is that a crime exactly
and and if the crime is silence
and inaction how do you square silence
and inaction with the fact that it's
reported that they were doing the
opposite
they were actively saying should we turn
them on his side
should we treat it differently how can
we keep them alive
that's the opposite of an action that's
actually action
in which they discussed the best option
and in the end
they did not find an option that worked
now
uh let me let me complete a thought i
realized i didn't complete earlier
fentanyl in the system creates the
possibility that the fentanyl killed him
just by itself
there there is a non-zero chance
that he may have taken some if he had
any drugs left over
that he didn't want to be busted for he
may have put him in his mouth
if he took the drugs he had with him so
that he wouldn't be busted
it would be a high likelihood if any of
that was fentanyl
it would be highly high likelihood that
he would have an overdose at exactly
that time
in other words while in custody you know
which
didn't have to happen at that very
moment but the odds of him dying
while in custody were very high if and
this is just speculation
he took any drugs to avoid being caught
with drugs
now we don't know that that happened
but because there was fentanyl in him
that becomes a contributing factor
so if you were the the cop with the knee
and you're his
attorney how would you argue the case
here's how i would argue it
i would say i knew that i was only
putting enough pressure on him that
you know it wouldn't kill him
but i didn't know that under these
special circumstances that he had these
drugs in him
i didn't know that was an extra
dangerous situation so it was an
accident
i think that's what he'll argue but i
think he'll probably lose and it'll be
manslaughter anyway
um so we got that going on oh it's
called excited delirium
is what one of the police called it he
was worried
uh also known as agitated delirium
now the delirium part is related to
being on drugs and it means that you
you become suddenly violent or could
so so we now have an evidence that the
police were
sort of doing a field diagnosis
you know they're not medically trained
but they are trained to recognize
situations
so that they can do risk management and
one of the police officers was
was calling it out as maybe this excited
delirium
or agitated delirium which means that
they were recognizing
that although the guy seemed nominally
not dangerous that it was the nature of
his condition
that could cause him to flip to
dangerous very quickly
so that was actually discussed and now
you understand
why three of them were holding him down
because they suspected there was a high
likelihood
that he could turn from friendly to
dangerous uh
at you know at a snap because of the
condition they were observing
not because of him or not because he was
black
but because of the the medical condition
they observed
their case is going to be a lot stronger
than you want it to be i'll tell you
um yeah
all right so we have two battling
autopsies which of course the fake news
is reporting
incorrectly so the fake news is
reporting that
the family's autopsy the one they paid
to have done
shows that the cause of death is
homicide
whereas the other experts are
yeah i think i think in both cases it's
homicide
yeah i think in both cases it's homicide
but
if you look at the autopsy report the
official one
it says cause of death homicide and then
at the bottom it has a footnote that
nobody's going to report
you know what the footnote says the
footnote says
you should ignore that word homicide
that's what the footnote says i'm
paraphrasing but that's what it says
it says don't take homicide as homicide
it says that right on the same page
it says cause of death homicide and then
just right down the page
it says just to be clear homicide
doesn't mean
legally homicide it just means there was
a person involved in the guy died
basically
there was another person involved the
actions of the other person
you know were somehow implicated in the
death
so in other words the coroner report
does not say
a crime happened
and they're clear about that they say it
in direct language this report does not
determine that a crime occurred it's
very important
if cnn i'll be amazed if cnn ever
reports
correctly
uh sorry i got a security
i got a security alert while i was on
live stream here
but it was just a bird walking across my
security camera
you know we live in the kind of time
where
um i don't want to tell you that uh
i i'm afraid of for my own life because
you know my risk is actually pretty low
but you know if i talk about things in
public you know one worries that
that crazy people can can find you or
whatever
but uh of course people like me are
taking extra security precautions
so i i have this thought in my mind
of how that would go down and it doesn't
go down well for other people let's just
put it that way
all right um
so we got the battling autopsies we've
got cnn who will probably never mention
fentanyl or that
its role in this whole thing which is
pretty big
in all likelihood we don't know nothing
nothing is known about this
that's one thing all right um
[Music]
let me tell you let me just use this let
me ask you this
uh i predict not i predict i estimate
so on back of the envelope and estimate
i would say that antifa has killed more
black americans
or will kill more black americans in the
coming decade
than all of the police action put
together
so that's my prediction so my prediction
is that antifa
given given their contributions the
riots and the economic
devastation which they're causing right
now
my estimate is that antifa if you were
to do the math
would be directly responsible for maybe
i know
tens of thousands of black american
deaths
through the mechanism of extra poverty
imagine trying to be a young black man
in an urban place
and asking for a job at any future
retail
organization good luck
good luck because if the goal of the
riots was to decrease racism
of course the opposite happened of
course
because you know tragically
there the protesters are going to get
very much of the opposite of what they
were protesting
for so in the making it worse category
this is sort of
the world class most making it worse
thing you could ever do
now i think a lot of the protesters are
well intentioned even most
maybe most of the protesters are well
intentioned certainly not the looters
uh certainly not antifa but a lot of
people are well intentioned
still i think you could do a calculation
to figure out
um how many black americans antifa
will kill over the next 10 years
compared to the police
and i don't think it'll be even close i
think the numbers would be
you know in rough numbers it's going to
be something like tens of thousands
of black americans will be killed by
antifa
through poverty and maybe
a few hundred over ten years would be
killed by the police
so i think it's sort of a few hundred
that the police are killing
to maybe tens of thousands of black
americans that anti-follow killing
and that's not counting that's not
counting the fact that good luck getting
a job
because of what you know even if the
economy came back
you know and if if you go in for let me
ask you this
i put this uh poll up just before i went
live so i can i can check the results
and i'll ask you this if you were an
employer
would you and you somebody came in for a
job in the future
and you saw in their social media
history
that they had participated in the
protests in any fashion
in any fashion it doesn't matter if they
were peaceful
doesn't matter if you know they weren't
just in any fashion
would you hire them would you hire
somebody
who participated in the protests
knowing that their participation was the
shield for the looters and
antifa knowing that that was certainly
going to
to do that how many of you would hire
somebody who had taken part in that
because i would go on record as saying i
would not
um and i think that's important i would
never hire anybody
who had participated in any fashion in
the protest
now i might make an exception if they if
it was the first night
you know if somebody came in for a job
and said blah blah and i said well i've
looked at your social media
you were at those protests if they were
to argue to me
whoa no no i went the first night
the first night it was really just a
protest it just devolved
i would take that into consideration and
i would say oh
okay so really if you if you saw how bad
it was after the first night and you
adjusted
by not going the second night i could
live with that
because maybe that's a good person good
cause
i saw that it didn't work out adjusted
totally i could live with that but if
they went more than one night
after we knew that the writing was
happening
uh all right so here's here's the poll i
did online
so of course this is not a scientific
poll i said would you hire someone whose
social media history showed they were
part of this week's
riot looting protests uh the people who
said of course they're good people
three percent three percent of the
people who answer this now of course
these are mostly conservatives who
answered i think
uh 79 said no why risk it and 18
said just show me the votes so really if
you get rid of the 18 percent who just
wanted to see the results
it was 79 to 3
in favor of they would not hire somebody
whose social media history
showed that they had been even an
attendee even just an
attendee at the protests so
why is the news not reporting that why
do you have to hear that from me
right the news is no longer the news the
news is now some kind of social
programming
you know the news is programming you
it's not uh
it's not just giving you news so
that's a pretty big story now what does
it mean to declare antifa domestic
terrorists
well the the funny part about it is that
the democrats have been suckered into
supporting
a a terrorist organization publicly
so kamala harris is you know one of the
people
you know raising money for for a group
that has just been declared domestic
terrorists now of course if you ask
kamala she'd say no i'm raising money
for
uh you know honest protesters who have a
real cause
but unfortunately she can't distinguish
between
who's getting bailed out who's antifa
and who was a good person who was in the
wrong place
so in a very real sense not even in the
political sense but in a real
direct accurate factual sense
camaleris is supporting domestic
terrorists
now trump has managed to be in a
position
where his opponents are supporting
terrorists who are destroying the
country
do you think he can lose election at
this point
if things go the way they're going and
trump
becomes the the name that is associated
with the coming crackdown because there
has to be a crackdown eventually
he almost certainly will be elected in
the biggest landslide in
american history because how many
democrats
are watching the carnage and watching
their own lives being destroyed
by their team a lot a lot of democrats
just watched their entire lives be
destroyed
by their own side and they also watched
that none of the republican cities
seem to be even affected it's hard to
not notice
um and it's hard to not notice that one
team
is supporting literally terrorists now
what do you do with this uh i heard
andrew mccarthy say that there are
enough laws on the books already
that you don't need to define anybody as
domestic terrorist it doesn't have any
meaning
but what meaning could it have we could
give it meaning
congress can make new laws right we know
how to make laws
so let's say we gave us a meaning what
kind of meaning
what kind of powers would you want to
attribute
to the domestic terrorist
designation now of course the big risk
is that once once it's even allowed that
you could call domestic people
terrorists
the moment you allow that you're open to
abuse
because then there might be some future
group that's not so bad that gets
declared terrorist organization
because it's politically expedient so
you can see it would be opening
uh pandora's box
but we also might not have any choice in
other words the risk
reward here might be that well you just
have to do it anyway
so what could it mean to be designated a
terrorist organization i'll give you
some suggestions
one thing is it could change the
sentencing
so i would argue that if somebody is
responsible for the deaths of 10 000
black americans you should be
considering the death penalty
or at the very least life in prison so i
would think that for
antifa um given that they're destroying
the lives
of tens of thousands of people and that
they're literally
an anti-america treasonous
group that something like the death
sentence or life in prison
would be appropriate now i don't think
any of these things are going to happen
i'm just
this is just brainstorming
what about banning phones at protests
now you can't really ban a phone but you
could
turn them off you could track them
what about tracking them let me ask you
this
i would say that i have a security
interest
as an american i have a security
interest
in knowing who the anti-fa people were
or indeed knowing who was at the protest
in general
because i would like to keep them away
from me because they would be dangerous
to me
i think it's a fair statement to say
that anybody who attended the protests
not anybody that's too much but that the
average person who attended the protest
would be physically dangerous to me
because they might perceive me to be you
know part of the problem
so don't i have an interest in knowing
where they are
and who they are the same as i have an
interest in knowing where a pedophile
lives
if you can publish the address and name
of a pedophile
because there's something special about
that crime
that means that if there's something
special about some other crime
the door is open so we have a precedent
that in unusual circumstances the public
has such an
interest to know that you can violate
the privacy
of especially bad people such as
pedophiles
because the the public health interest
is just that great
now since i'm literally at risk and
so are many of you from even being in
the same room
as somebody from antifa it's sort of
risky at this point
don't i have a uh a citizen's right to
know who they are and where they are
and and to avoid higher than hiring them
imagine if you accidentally hired
somebody from antifa
and you didn't know it well that's not
good for your business is it
might not even be good for your health
so i would say that
given that the we know the government is
tracking all of our phones all the time
shouldn't i have a right again i'm just
brainstorming here
every idea i toss out i'm well aware
that the unintended consequences might
be larger than the problem
so you don't need to tell me these are
good ideas or bad ideas we're just
brainstorming
so just brainstorming some more suppose
we just made a list
of everybody whose phone was at the
protests
which would be pretty much everybody
because i don't think too many people
were there without phones
so shouldn't i always be able to look at
the list
let's say i'm going to hire somebody
shouldn't i be able to check them
against the list of people who attended
now i could ask questions and say why
did you attend
they might say i was shocked by the
murder of a of a black man
i just wanted to show my show my
participation
and you might say good enough i agree
with that
you're on you're on board maybe i may be
up to you
but i do think that the employer
is owed that information for health and
safety reasons
because i think you could identify
somebody who's actually
anti-fog if you're talking to them it
probably isn't that hard
to identify antifa if you're looking for
it you know
if you know what to look for so i would
just put that out there
the the phones of all the people at the
protests
we could easily identify where
where they were and when now you could
also do it a clever way
which is you could say there's a public
health information because
there's a public health need
because of coronavirus would you like
would you not like to know
if you're coming in physical contact
with anybody who came in physical
contact with thousands of protesters
yeah i think you have a legitimate right
to know
if somebody intentionally put themselves
in a highly infectious
situation for your own health i think
you have a right to know that
is it likely that any of these things
will happen i'd say no
not likely at all what if
domestic terrorists lose their right to
privacy
just the way foreign terrorists do
foreign terrorists don't have any
american
privacy rights but supposed to domestic
terrorists just for
you know a mental experiment suppose
they lost their rights of privacy as
well
their phones were tracked their social
media was was tracked
uh et cetera would that happen
i don't know just brainstorming suppose
we did to domestic terrorists the same
thing we do
to uh foreign terrorists which is
disrupt their
economic network there are literally
gofundme accounts for terrorists
what that's right there are public
gofundme accounts for antifa
who are domestic terrorists why do we
allow that
so certainly there's something we could
do with the finances something with the
penalties something with
privacy and identification i don't think
any of them who will be identified
if you could identify them certainly
employers know not to hire them so
that's pretty bad
now i would say that the news business
is
um i think violating a public
trust and this is both the left and the
right
i think both the left and right are
violating
a public trust by not reporting
that the true statistics of crime so
that they sort of let it stay out there
that
the black people are killed at a higher
rate by cops
allowing that to be believed by the
public
is such a an abrogation of
responsibility
that i would think the ftc could pull
their licenses
or the fcc or whatever whoever there
must be somebody who could pull some
kind of a license for that kind of
bad behavior because the public is
required to know
that these pr protesters are dangerous
both in terms of virus and in terms of
just being around them they're
terrorists
and the people who march with them of
course are supportive of terrorists
by definition they don't have to mean
they're supportive
doesn't mean their intention is to be
supportive but they are and they made
that choice
um so where and and i said it before
where are my data projections
we've got a million estimates for what's
going to happen with global warming
we saw all these estimates of who's
going to die from the coronavirus
we have estimates and data and graphs
for every freaking thing under the sun
the only one that matters today the only
one that matters
is this graph of how many black people
antifa are killing
because if the if the news we're
reporting that fact
or even just talking about the question
imagine that cnn had a panel discussion
and let's say it got picked up by the
other news and the discussion went like
this
well we've run the numbers and we you
know there's some there's some dispute
about the estimates because they're
always
there always are but in general terms it
looks like antifa will kill tens of
thousands of black americans
through their destruction of economic
resources and and of course
make racism much much worse i mean you
can measure that with polls
so where's that and then of course these
people will never get jobs once they're
identified and
eventually we'll be able to identify
them all one way or the other
where's the news reporting those basic
facts
because those are the basic facts that
would reduce the temperature and help
things
because it would discourage people from
continuing to do these things
but the news is kind of actively
encouraging it
i would say yeah larry elder has
has been one of the uh probably one of
the only
honest voices in this this whole
situation
because he's a black man and he's a
conservative so he's capable you know
he's got this
uh sort of a safe position where he can
say things that are true
you know i think we've come to the point
that the only people who can tell the
truth
in public are black conservatives
think about that that'll blow your mind
when you think about it a little longer
the only people who are allowed
even allowed to tell the truth
in public are black conservatives
because they can say things white
conservatives can't say
and the other side is just lying so
how about that um
all right let me just check my notes and
see if i missed anything exciting
um and we've got police shootings in las
vegas
uh doc d.j dr funk juice reminds me
uh he's a vegas resident that
police were actually targeted last night
police were targeted and shot last night
now how much longer are we willing to go
oh yeah jessie lee peterson is another
truth-teller
very very interesting man very
interesting man
jesse lee peters is one of the most
interesting people i spent a little time
with him he did an interview when i was
on a book tour
and there is something about that guy
that
that is really i don't know he's got
that x factor he's just got something
going on
i love that guy um
yeah candace owens can tell the truth
although she gets
she gets a lot of social blow back from
it
all right somebody says
good to know because i'm a black
conservative
and you can tell the truth clinton is in
court today for what
uh scott can you find the laws on
shooting terrorists
well i don't think we're going to see
any laws that would allow
domestic terrorists to be shot i think
you can rule that out
estimate is that eight to ten innocent
people are dead from the riots
that's the small number i think that's
worth reporting
but the big number is what the economic
devastation will do
so i'm going to be advocating that we
see those numbers just in the interest
of knowing the whole story yeah we we
want to know the whole story
uh we want to know how many black people
antifa is killed
now i was thinking that maybe the only
if if you try to game this out
and think what is the how do you get
past this
my best guess is like the coronavirus
there are some things
where the energy itself just dissipates
after a time
so it could be that after a certain
amount of destruction the energy just
dissipates
that would be cool but there are
certainly smart people such as rudy
giuliani and people who understand crime
and
criminal minds and that sort of thing
who say that
as long as the criminals keep getting
away with it
the looting in particular especially the
gang looting which is what makes it safe
they lose in such large numbers that the
police wisely just
step back because there's nothing you
can do they're so outnumbered
and you don't want people to get hurt
over merchandise
so the looters have come up with a
business model
that we don't have any response to
because if you don't actually kill them
why would they stop because you can't
arrest them and even if you rested a few
so many would not be arrested it would
still be a good risk reward
so right now the business model of the
looters is the superior business model
they just come in large numbers they use
social media
they get some stuff they go home there's
no real risk
to them except of course the total
destruction of the economy which will
catch up to them eventually
but the police don't have a response to
that so if you're trying to say
all right so where does this go one way
is that police get better tools you know
and maybe they prevent things early and
they just figure out to be more clever
and more effective
that's certainly some of that will
happen
meaning that there's no doubt that the
police will become more effective
and will will bring in new tools we
don't know what they are yet
but we don't know if they'll be
effective i suppose that doesn't work
suppose the business model of the
looters just is so good that it goes
from
store to store to store and it's just
every night
and once they've robbed your town they
just pick a new town
until all the towns are robbed to
nothing
what would stop them because it's
working
as long as it works why would you stop
doing it people do things that work
the only thing i can think of and now
imagine
imagine if they started shooting people
at or
you know getting tough on protesters
eventually a black person would be
killed by a policeman
what happens if one black person no
matter what they were doing
no matter the situation if one black
person gets killed
by one police officer even justified
what's going to happen the whole the
whole cities will just go up in flames
now you could argue that it shouldn't
and blah blah blah but it would
you know it would so i got a feeling
that the only way this ends
is by taking out antifa in whatever way
that can happen
so antifa is the weak link meaning that
the black people are not going to
support
antifa why would they because antifa is
literally killing them by tens of
thousands
right now you know it'll take a while
for the deaths
but what they're doing guarantees the
deaths of tens of thousands
of african americans so i would think
the black community
would be perfectly happy if the you know
if the government just went tough on
antifa
because that would take enough of the
energy and of the situation
that maybe that makes your other tools
more effective but you gotta
you gotta remove energy from the from
the situation and that's the weakest
link
so i would say antifa is a weak link you
gotta go after that hard
and then see if you have enough tools to
deal with whatever's left
uh all right let's see
legally can the fbi treat the antifa
like the unibomber
mcvay or serial killers i would think so
i would think so yeah
difference being the immediacy of the
actual crime
why are there george floyd inspired
protests in europe
i'm a bit baffled somebody says well let
me explain that to you
it's not about george floyd it's really
not
and the european uh protest proved that
now which is not to say that there
aren't lots of protesters who are there
for
for that explicit reason george floyd
there are plenty of them
but that's not what's causing the
problem
it's it's not the genuine good intention
people who want to protest against
discrimination
and and racism they're not the problem
you know
we could have them marching all day long
i'll march with them
it's the looters and and the antifa of
course so europe has plenty of potential
looters plenty of potential antifa they
had their own lockdown
they've got lots of young people if
you've got lots of young people with too
much energy especially males
they need to go break stuff
unfortunately
if we could be sexist for a moment
uh young males every type
nothing racist here but young males of
every type
everywhere in the world if they don't
have anything productive to do
like go to work or go to war they're
gonna break stuff
it's it's built into the model they
don't have any there's just too much
energy there and it's not always
productive energy
so um somebody says restitution
i don't know what that means but i can
tell you that reparations
is over as a as a topic
you know i i had been supportive of
reparations as
at least a conversation you know my idea
of it was
not to give cash payments in any way but
maybe
target improving education in some way
as
as the form of reparations in other
words giving african americans some kind
of advantage
for funding you know some kind of
college experience
as sort of a reparations now i'm not
saying that was a good idea
i was just sort of trying to brainstorm
to find if there was anything
any any weird combination of ideas
that would get something like
reparations but would not be odious
to the political right i never came up
with one
certainly i never got close but i was
willing to
i was willing to embarrass myself by
that conversation
here again lack of ego is useful because
it's a conversation that you get in a
lot of trouble
you get a lot into trouble telling
conservatives they should at least
engage in the conversation of
reparations that's not a comfortable
place to be
but of course i don't care however
as i promised you yesterday if there was
another night of
uh looting because the protesters are
so uncaring the protesters are so
uncaring that they would create a
situation that guarantees this death
and looting i said that i would abandon
the african-american community in terms
of helping so
so today that goes into effect so i
would say that the first thing is
uh reparations are off the table these
are the reparations
let me say that again this is the
reparations
the the cost the economic cost of this
will be far greater
than whatever checks could ever be
written
for reparations all right i mean i would
look to an economist to actually do me
the math
but i think we just had the reparations
these are the reparations because it's
so expensive to build back these
businesses and recover
that i would imagine we're talking
something in the trillion dollar range
just from these riots probably trillion
and i can't imagine that reparations
would have ever reached
a trillion dollars so uh somebody said
at latimer can help with that there's
nothing to help with
reparations are done reparations are
are an historical fact there's nothing
you have to talk about in the future
that conversation is completely gone
uh and likewise i i just can't have any
empathy
i would say that while it is true it's
always good to start with this
no actually i'm gonna go
i was trying to control my temper this
morning because i
just don't think it's good to have too
much temper
so i'm gonna bring my temperature down
and then i'm going to make a criticism
of black lives matter
compare this compare the slogan black
lives matter
to i have a dream i have a dream as just
perfect persuasion in every way
everybody likes it
there's nothing to dislike doesn't cause
doesn't cause a fight
nothing like that when i hear black
lives matter
does that feel like i have a dream does
black lives matter
feel like the same message as martin
luther king
that you know everybody should be equal
you know we're heading that direction
nobody disagrees
let's get there together versus
black lives matter because what do you
hear
when you hear black lives matter i'll
tell you what i hear
i hear that white white lives don't
matter
now is that what they're saying no no
they're not saying that
they're not saying that at all but it's
what i hear
when you hear when you hear i have a
dream do you have
does that sound anything like that's
negative for anybody
no it's a it's explicitly positive
for everyone and indeed martin luther
king
included everyone when he talked about
it everybody
white and black you know you can rise to
whatever level
he explicitly included everybody as
being valuable
that is why martin luther king
has a holiday and black lives matter
doesn't even have a leader that's the
difference
black lives matter um the
the phrase black lives matter is
destructive
it's destructive to civilization i have
dream
is productive in a year i'm only talking
about persuasion
right so if you're new to if you're new
to these periscopes
on a persuasion level the phrase black
lives matter makes things worse
because what do white people say when
they hear it
all lives matter what do black people
say when they hear all lives matter
you're not taking it seriously i hate
you now
no i hate you for bringing up a problem
that wasn't a problem
no i hate you black lives matter is a
divisive
it's a divisive uh identity
it's divisive now i don't know that it
was meant to be
i don't think that anybody thought down
and said let me give
let me come up with a good divisive
slogan but they came up with one
in fact it might be uh possibly
the worst slogan of all time maybe
because of the destruction it's going to
cause
so i think black lives matter as a
slogan
probably will kill lots of black people
you know i i think it will be
anti-productive
because it creates division which
creates more racism which creates
everything bad
if black lives matter simply rebranded
as
all lives matter there wouldn't be any
riots
it'd sort of be over if black lives
matter
rebranded themselves as all lives matter
i'd be marching i'd be marching
but if you want to make it about
yourself um
i think you have every right to do that
because every group gets to take care of
its community
every right to do that don't have a
complaint with that at all i'm just
giving you some persuasion advice
i'm not giving you you know life advice
not telling you what you think i'm not
telling you what you should think
nothing like that you know everybody
gets to make their own
decisions in this world i'm only telling
you that if you wanted to be effective
you need to be effective with white
people
because otherwise you're just talking to
yourself and black lives matter
is a message from black people to black
people when white people hear it
it's divisive if you want to be divisive
uh just start some protests that you
know are going to bring antifa and
looters
and let us film all that so that we can
make racism much much worse
because that's what happened so i would
say that black lives matter is a
failed destructive
organization with good intentions
good intentions for you know the vast
majority of people who are
who are associated all good intentions
but
execution uh solid failure
all right that's for today
uh let's see how this plays out and um
i told you that i wasn't going to do
evening periscopes anymore because the
coronavirus shutdown was winding down
but then i got a curfew last night
even where i live i live in like the the
safest place in the whole world
even i had a curfew freaking curfew i
broke the curfew of course
i'm not going to pay attention to a
curfew in my town but uh
yeah it's not like there's any risk
around here but
the fact that there was a curfew makes
me think maybe i should do some
evening periscopes but i haven't decided
on that yet
all right um yeah people get very angry
when you say all lives matter it's a
divisive slogan
that's all for now i'll talk to you
later
