ppy that I'm one of the most noted critics of the thing that is the operating system of their company right now? They have ESG. So management of newspapers, do you think they were opposed to ESG? The management of newspapers or more importantly in many cases the hedge funds that own the groups of newspapers because that's how newspapers tend to be owned by big financial entities that own like a chain. So the people that I've pledged to attack, the ESG people, because it's so harmful for business it's harmful for everything it's harmful for society but business in particular, do you think there's any coincidence that the biggest critic of those things got canceled by the people who promote those things? It's not the only reason but when you see who's opposing me and canceling me you have to ask about their other motives.

The thing I said maybe it was worth canceling according to some people but that's not why they did it. That's not why they did it is to shut me up. That's why. Shut me up in a variety of ways but ESG would be one of them. I was reminded yesterday that when Dilbert was first introduced into newspapers it was very difficult to get the newspaper to buy it because it made fun of management. And I've forgotten how quaint things were back then. Dilbert was a controversial strip. It was controversial because the main managers and leaders look like idiots and the managers and leaders were not on board with that idea because it allowed the staff to mock the people above them. It made it easier for them. Just hey look at this comic. So the people who canceled me, has anybody stopped to think that the people who canceled me, the management of the newspapers, are the people that I've been mocking for 34 years? Viciously mocking them. Do you think they didn't want a reason to cancel me? Even if they thought it was funny they'd probably like well a little less of that would be good.

All right. Here's a second summary. People who don't know the context of my controversy have asked me to summarize it and so I'm borrowing this but this is basically it. I said some version of you should avoid people that society has primed to be racist against you. Some people said wait a minute Scott you did not add that nuance the first time you said it and then I said yes that's why I clarified and then they said clarification is not allowed and I said what? And they said no if you meant to clarify it you would have done that in the first place. And I said no the reason that there's a word called clarification is that there are all kinds of reasons that you don't say it in the first place or sometimes you don't know that somebody needed that clarification.

I actually got two people on social media to argue in public while people were watching that clarifying your comments is not to be accepted. Can you believe that? Two people like adult human beings argue that clarifying is a bad idea. That's how you know you've won an argument. You can't win an argument harder than that. Clarifying is a bad idea. What?

All right. So here's the summary. Avoid people who are primed primarily by things like ESG and the narrative and CRT and everything else. So we should avoid people who are primed to be racist against you. The media said well that's a racist thing to say and then nobody would have cared except there's an entire industry of complainers. They have different reasons. So you've got your race scripters, dopamine gooners, victims of fake news, the people who didn't know the context and my political enemies. The newspapers they're literally my political enemies. So then the people who heard it from all of these people they responded as exactly you'd imagine. So that's what happened.

So people who missed the context that's the cliff notes version. There's a much deeper richer more interesting context but the wine club with an H that's funny.

All right. So my statement is this. I don't require a Rasmussen poll to clarify my lived experience. My lived experience is that the race relations are being poisoned by the media narrative that white people are the source of their problems. Now I don't argue with the fact that white people are the source of problems. I just argue that if that's how you focus you only make things worse. And that focusing on the future and how to work together and solutions that everybody likes, education being the easiest one because there's lots of agreement black and conservative at least there's lots of agreement and more Democrats in general.

All right. So my lived experience is that black Americans are being poisoned by the narrative and while I can't be sure it's true any reasonable person would see the poisoning happening because the poisoning is obvious and on the surface. Right that's not an opinion is it? Would you say that's an opinion or is that just an observation? That you all say that the media narrative is anti-white and very clearly at the moment very anti-white. So my comment is that anti-white is looking backwards and that everybody who looks backwards gets a worse result than everybody who looks forward. It's on average. So if you keep a backwards-looking victimization who caused it whose problem it is that can be useful in the short run and I wouldn't abandon that but if it's your primary strategy for the future it can't work. It can't work at all.

So when Black America figures out that I'm trying to unlock them from effectively a brainwashing situation which by the way isn't because you're black. We're all brainwashed into our own bubble so that's not a racial comment. Everybody's being brainwashed into their own little bubble and it's not their fault because no normal even smart person can get out of a brainwashed bubble. It doesn't work that way. You can't really think your way out of the bubble. You can't just think car I'm out of the bubble. Usually it's some external event that knocks you out of your bubble or something. Maybe you did mushrooms or something but you don't get out of your bubble just by reading the news. That's not going to help. So some people think they can. There might be some exceptions.

All right. So here's where we are. If you say that what I said was racist I agree. I agreed from the start by the way. I never disagreed. But I will say that if you're ignoring the context that you can't fix any racist situation without also appearing to be and maybe actually being racist. Meaning that we should probably make a distinction between racism with a capital R and little r racism. Do