Episode 103 - WAKE UP, PUNCHY
Topics: Nicknamer-In-Chief dubs De Niro “Punchy” North Korea trip reactions Is the world safer now? Trump wills things into existence Giving trust to build and receive trust NK political prisoners? The criticism of video President Trump created for Chairman Kim
Hey everybody, wake up Punchy. That's my new catchphrase. I think that's everybody's catchphrase now. And when I say wake up Punchy, I mean wake up and get ready for the best part of your day so far: coffee with Scott Adams.
View segment →And it starts with the simultaneous sip. And that goes like this. Ah, that's some good simultaneous sipping.
View segment →So once again our president, our nicknamer in chief, has given one of the most classic nicknames we've seen yet for Robert De Niro. His new nickname: Punchy. Now having watched De Niro's, let's say, reactions to the president lately, I thought to myself, what would happen? And by the way, I knew no…
View segment →Now all of you I think are watching the reactions to the president's trip and the generic agreement that they made to make things better. And this morning I'm reading that the president said that we're already safer. Essentially, I forget what words he used, but that the risk of war has now subsided…
View segment →Colbert refutes me nightly. Well that's his job. And why did he praise Kim Jong-un? Same reason. Praising Kim is one of the ways that Kim will feel comfortable with the president. It's one of the ways that Kim will learn to trust him. It's one of the ways he'll have a good feeling. Because remember,…
View segment →Now if you say to yourself, hey but what about concrete promises of getting rid of their nukes and everything else? We definitely want all that stuff. But ask yourself, is it easier for North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons when we're trusting them in public and complimenting the leader and off…
View segment →Now I wanted to put down to one idea that apparently there are many ticklish, sensitive elements to making peace with North Korea. And one of them is the number of people who are alleged to be in prison camps. And I've heard some people speculate that you can't loosen up the North because it would b…
View segment →North Korean defectors have a great difficulty fitting into South Korea. Exactly. Yeah you would not simply release them into the wild. You would need an extended period where they're in something like resettlement camps. There would be much better than a gulag. And then maybe paired up with South K…
View segment →Now I want to tell you about, I don't have the link but it was The New Yorker magazine who wrote an article. And you've seen the number of them like this about the video that President Trump shared with Kim. Now you may have seen my periscope in which I said it was brilliant persuasion and it got ev…
View segment →All right that's enough for now. I gotta go do some other stuff and I will talk to you later.
View segment →Hey everybody, wake up Punchy. That's my new catchphrase. I think that's everybody's catchphrase now. And when I say wake up Punchy, I mean wake up and get ready for the best part of your day so far: coffee with Scott Adams. And it starts with the simultaneous sip. And that goes like this. Ah, that's some good simultaneous sipping.
So once again our president, our nicknamer in chief, has given one of the most classic nicknames we've seen yet for Robert De Niro. His new nickname: Punchy.
Now having watched De Niro's, let's say, reactions to the president lately, I thought to myself, what would happen? And by the way, I knew nothing about Robert De Niro except what movies he's been in. Didn't know anything about his personal life. And I said to myself, what would happen if I googled his name and alcoholism? And sure enough you get all kinds of hits referring to his drug and alcohol abuse.
And I thought to myself, here's the most drugged-down, violent guy who is criticizing a guy who has never had a drink or a drug and was literally in the middle of making peace with North Korea. So it wasn't that long ago where people imagined, you know, the people who were opposed to the president imagined that they were the good people. They were the people who were well-mannered. They were the people who didn't say hateful things. They were the good people. They were the ones who loved each other. They loved peace. They loved those kinds of things.
But the president, candidate Trump at the time, he was the opposite of our niceness. He's a ball of hate and darkness and every other ism that you can think of. But what happened while no one was watching? Complete reversal. De Niro is almost like he's taken on the role of whatever was the worst thing people imagined about candidate Trump. Everything that you imagined about candidate Trump is that he would stand in front of a crowd and start swearing and insulting a world leader. Right? That's what people worried about President Trump. And De Niro did that. And he seems unstable.
When you look at De Niro, I'm not a doctor so I'm not going to diagnose his mental health, but he does have a well-documented history of drug abuse, alcoholism, bad behavior. That part seems to be objectively true. And so he's become the exact thing that the other side imagined Trump would become while Trump was becoming nicer and making peace.
Now of course President Trump had to punch back because he's a counter-puncher. And I think I laughed for half an hour after I saw "wake up Punchy." It was just the perfect way for the President of the United States to end a humorous little jab back tweet. So I don't think you can take the president's tweet too seriously. It wasn't written to be serious. It was written just to give a little poke back and to entertain his base, which it did very, very well.
Now all of you I think are watching the reactions to the president's trip and the generic agreement that they made to make things better. And this morning I'm reading that the president said that we're already safer. Essentially, I forget what words he used, but that the risk of war has now subsided and that we're safer than the way we were before. His critics want to argue that point. But here's the thing: you don't really go to war with people that you're having nice conversations with and offering to give them money.
When was the last time that a country said, hey, if you let us we can make your country wealthier and we're not really asking anything in return except in a normal capitalist way? If we invest, people would expect a return, but we just want to help. How about that? We just want to help. When was the last time somebody nuked a country that was offering to help them? That's not a thing.
So when the president said we're going to stop our war games, that was as close as you can get to a declaration of peace. Because you know that shows that both parties are willing to sort of step back in very small ways. Because everybody can just redo everything. They've claimed they've stopped. It would be easy for North Korea to start testing missiles. It would be easy for us to start doing war games again. So none of this is totally important in a physical realm. But psychologically it just shows that we're no longer on the track to war. And as long as we're not on that track, and here's the important part, we don't have any reason to get back on it. There's no reason. What reason would you imagine that North Korea would say now let's go make our nuclear arsenal twice as big? Now why? What possible reason would they have to do that? Likewise, what possible reason would we have to attack their country? There's nothing to gain.
So we've taken this situation where you had two countries that didn't quite understand the motives of the other, didn't understand if the other was crazy or not, didn't understand if there were bad intentions or good. Didn't really know. And then what do we know this week? Well, Kim and Trump have a much better understanding of the other. President Trump has said that he trusts Kim and he thinks that Kim trusts him too.
Now they're skeptics, I believe, when they heard that. President Trump said he trusts him. I believe that the critics probably threw up in their mouths upon hearing that. Oh my God, how could he fall for this? Doesn't he know the history of North Korean promises? Yes he does. Of course he does. And does President Trump have 100 percent trust in his own mind that Kim will do the right thing? Well we can't read his mind. We don't know. But it's unlikely it's a hundred percent because there aren't that many things that are a hundred percent.
More likely Trump is willing into existence a situation that's better. And what he would like to will into existence is a situation of trust. So what is the very best way to receive trust? Tell me. Tell me anybody. What is the best way to become trusted? Give trust. Exactly. Psychologically speaking, the very best way to get trust from someone who is reluctant to give it is to give it to them first.
Now because we're the larger country with the larger military, giving trust first is a little bit easier and it's a little bit more literally to go first there. Now keep in mind that trust can always be taken back and that doesn't mean that we give up on inspection or give up on making sure that we do what we need to do to document things are working in the right direction. But in terms of what you say when asked do you trust him, the exact right answer was yes. Every other answer was the wrong answer. Right? Because in private meetings on both sides they can express whatever doubts they have in private. That makes perfect sense. In public there was one right way to answer that question and Trump pinned it, which is yes I trust him and I think he trusts me as well. Because that actually creates it. He's creating that world. He's not predicting it. He's creating it by just defining it as true and then living in it and letting him live in it as well.
Colbert refutes me nightly. Well that's his job. And why did he praise Kim Jong-un? Same reason. Praising Kim is one of the ways that Kim will feel comfortable with the president. It's one of the ways that Kim will learn to trust him. It's one of the ways he'll have a good feeling. Because remember, people who use the facts to make decisions, they use how they feel about things to make decisions. So Trump is making Kim feel comfortable by complimenting him for the things he's doing right. He's simply not focusing on the past. Both leaders have said explicitly, they've said explicitly, let's let the past go. And at this point it looks like the president has things right where he wants them.
Now if you say to yourself, hey but what about concrete promises of getting rid of their nukes and everything else? We definitely want all that stuff. But ask yourself, is it easier for North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons when we're trusting them in public and complimenting the leader and offering to help and stopping our war games that are provocative? Is that a better situation for him to go back to his own people and say look, I think we've got something good here. Here's our one opportunity. According to that video I just watched, let's make something happen.
Now it's very important. This is why you want a Bolton on the team. The value added of Bolton is that nobody thinks he would have done any of those things I just mentioned. In other words, Bolton is the badass. He's the bad cop. And he's not going to be pleased until we have verification and we have real legitimate denuclearization in progress. And I don't think the Trump administration ever wants to be in a situation where later Bolton says hey I told them to do it this way and it didn't work out. So I think they have the perfect set of assets in place for a good result there.
Now I wanted to put down to one idea that apparently there are many ticklish, sensitive elements to making peace with North Korea. And one of them is the number of people who are alleged to be in prison camps. And I've heard some people speculate that you can't loosen up the North because it would bring to light all the people who were in prison camps and there's so many of them it would be a big disruptive thing. And so I asked myself what would be the best way to handle that because that does seem like a legitimate problem.
And here's my solution that I'll propose. Suppose that Chairman Kim said the following: In order to release the past I'm going to pardon all of the people who are in prisons or work camps for political reasons that were not legitimate crimes. Let me say it differently. So as opposed to normal crimes like murder and theft and stuff, suppose he said that we're going to forget the past and I'm going to pardon everybody who's in a gulag for criticizing the regime. And this pardon will apply to anybody who did anything bad in a political context. Do you see where this is going? It's a self-pardon.
So in other words, pardoning everybody who did anything wrong politically would include all the people in the gulags who are only there for political purposes. But it also includes himself, right? And it includes any family members or top aides. Now of course you'd have to say that from this day on if you do anything bad that's a new problem. But to forget the past he's going to have to pardon himself, his family, everybody close to him. And at the same time everybody in the gulags.
But what happens when you release a few hundred thousand people into the public who don't like Chairman Kim? It's dangerous, right? So here's the second part of the plan. I'm just proposing this as a thought experiment by the way. Anybody who's new to my periscopes should understand that I don't believe I know what I'm talking about. I talk about these sort of things to improve the diversification of the idea portfolio, just to get some more ideas flowing. That doesn't mean I have the right ones but I can help you think in a new way sometimes.
I suppose the second part of this idea is that those people who are released from the gulags are released to South Korea. Right? Because the people who come out of the gulags are the ones who are anti-Kim. And having them in his territory at the moment they're released could be a little destabilizing. So how about the first group that gets to cross the border and gets to enjoy the fruits of South Korea, suppose they were the people from the gulags. But you want to do this quietly. You want this to be an agreement between South Korea and North Korea. Keep the United States out of it. You want South Korea to fund this process because these people have to be taken care of. It wouldn't be that hard to give them a better lifestyle right off the bat than whatever they were doing in the gulag.
So you could create a situation where the people who were punished for their political crimes actually are the first ones who get the added benefits of the South Koreans' embrace. Now why would South Korea be the one to be involved with this and not the United States or China and anybody else? Here's the main reason: you want to keep it on the down-low. You don't want to make a public thing or a big one anyway. The news should know. It should be reported. But once it's reported that the people in the gulags have been pardoned and released to the south, we should by mutual agreement just stop talking about it after that. Just stop talking about it. Because it's not going to help anybody. The best thing we can do is take that pressure off of North Korea and just keep it quiet. Keep it on the down-low. Keep those people out of the news.
You could even have a law that says temporarily, it could be like a one-year law or something, where you say to South Korean media you're not allowed to talk to the people from the gulags. You just can't get their personal stories for one year, whatever it might be, longer than that. And they say the reason is for privacy. We respect the right of the press but there's a real privacy issue here for those people. They don't want attention and it would not be safe for them to get it because they might still have people they love in the north.
So South Korea could probably pull that off because they would understand the importance of keeping a respectful position toward North Korea. They probably understand about keeping things on the down-low. They would understand that this is just being helpful and we don't need to make things bad. We're just trying to help these people in the gulags at the same time we're trying to make life easier for North Korea so that they can do their denuclearizing and they don't have an unstable country at the same time.
So I just throw that out there as an idea. Getting people to not talk would be hard, yes. But you could ask the major publications to back off and I think South Koreans would largely want to get on that page. You could just say hey this is a one-year moratorium. Just give them some privacy. It's not about the news. It's more about the privacy. And you could also report the facts so that you haven't glossed over anything. You could do a press release that says these people were in these gulags for the following reasons. Life was brutal in a variety of ways but now they're here. Just stick to the facts. You don't have to sensationalize it more than it is.
North Korean defectors have a great difficulty fitting into South Korea. Exactly. Yeah you would not simply release them into the wild. You would need an extended period where they're in something like resettlement camps. There would be much better than a gulag. And then maybe paired up with South Korean families or whatever you need to do to integrate them. All right. It would create reunification pressure. I think a better way to say that would be it would be a small step toward reunification. Because on some level everybody likes that reunification if it doesn't happen right away and it happens in a comfortable way. So everybody likes it in concept and that would be one way to make a small step in that direction.
Yeah the 100 year plan for reunification. I still like it. Trump just nominated for Nobel Prize by Norwegian lawmakers. You know I'm not, I just don't know it's helpful at this point to be talking about any kind of Nobel Prizes. I think that's something that I'm guilty of, of jumping the gun on that stuff because it's sort of the wrong focus. It's fun. It was fun to talk about and it would be tremendous if someday events justified that. But at the moment it probably just gets a little bit ahead of the facts on the ground.
Now I want to tell you about, I don't have the link but it was The New Yorker magazine who wrote an article. And you've seen the number of them like this about the video that President Trump shared with Kim. Now you may have seen my periscope in which I said it was brilliant persuasion and it got everything right. And here's what people are getting wrong about that video. And I hope those of you who read my book Win Bigly, you probably anticipate what I'm gonna say.
So the people who criticize the video said things like this. They said well it was weird. All right that's not a reason. Weird. That's I don't know, just a label you put on it. It doesn't work or anything. People said it was cringe-worthy, weird, over the top. It's so much like a movie. So if you look at the critics they'll have lots of insult words for the style that was used. Tell me, those of you who have been following me for a while, tell me what they're missing. Tell me what they're missing when they dismissively label it. And I don't mean just that they don't understand persuasion. So they obviously are missing the technique in it. But what are they missing in the big picture of this thing?
Yeah they're missing a reason. That's true. They're missing any kind of reason. They just sort of assume that you agree with them and then they put insulting words on what they think you already agree with. You're saying a lot of things. I'm watching your comments. A lot of your comments are true and you're pointing out the good technique that's in the video and that's all accurate. It makes you think past the sale, past peace to how good peace will be. It's visual. It does all those things.
But here's the big part that people miss. And the funny thing is this is the thing that Trump gets right all the time and people who criticize Trump don't understand and get wrong all the time. And I'm going to work up to it. All right. Do you remember when President Trump was first campaigning and one of the big complaints was that he spoke in something like a sixth grade vocabulary and it was just so simple. And well, simple I guess. Do you remember how the smart people criticized that? And probably for about a year people kept saying yeah you know he's talking like a sixth grader. That's bad. And then he kept winning and became president while talking like a sixth grader. And about that time people like George Lakoff who is a linguistics professor at Berkeley started saying things like, you know that talking like a sixth grader is really the most effective way to talk. He, Trump, was talking in a way that the audience was perfectly suited to accept. In other words his style of talking was designed to be perfectly compatible with who he was talking to.
You noticed that when the president has children in the Oval Office he speaks to them like you talk to children. When he has Punchy De Niro going after him he talks to him in a way that is a little bit punching back and humorous etc. So he takes exactly the right tone. When he meets with Kim Jong-un he goes into a diplomat, almost a grandfatherly diplomat mode where he seemed to be embracing the younger diplomat. Just about the right tone.
What do the critics miss about the video that President Trump showed to Kim? What they miss is President Trump did not make a video to show to The New Yorker magazine. He didn't make a video to show to the New York Times. He didn't make a video to show to the Washington Post. He didn't make a video to show to his critics. He didn't make a video to show on national TV. He didn't make a video that he thought would be shown in the theaters. He made a video for one guy. Was that the right style to pick for that one guy? You know it was. Because you've seen the video that that one guy produces. We've seen the stuff that comes out of North Korea. Right? We've seen the type of language that North Korea employs. We see the videos that they make. Did President Trump's style in his video look a little bit familiar? Yes.
Why am I the first person to point out that when you make a product the product should be designed for the customer? The customer, or in this case the audience. He had an audience of one person. One person. And we know enough about that one person. We're assuming that there were enough people who have studied Kim, his profile. They know what the North Korean vibe is. They know what kind of things resonate etc. This was designed for that one person.
And if you say to me hey that's not the way we Western people like to see our videos. That seems weird. I don't know it just looks a little racist to me to criticize the video because it assumes that everybody is going to respond the same way to the same style and type of video. That feels a little not inclusive. It feels like you're not taking into account the legitimate cultural differences that a North Korean leader, the way he views the world and the type of media that he absorbs and the styles of things that he thinks feel right and what feels wrong. I'm no expert on North Korea but to me it looked like that video hit the sweet spot of exactly the audience they were going for. An audience of one.
Now ask yourself who else told you what I just told you? Who else said of course it looks weird to us. It's not for us. You know what, do you ever watch a children's cartoon on TV and you say to yourself this children's cartoon does not appeal to me? Do you know why? It wasn't made for you. When I watch a show like The Notebook or some teary crying ridiculous movie, do I go into that movie and say they made this movie all wrong? What's wrong with them? Don't they know that this movie is not compatible with me? Yes they know that. They didn't make that movie for me. They made it for people who like that sort of thing. Right? When I watch a boxing match, I don't like boxing. They just don't enjoy it. Do I say to myself when I watch a boxing match hey they're doing this boxing match wrong because I don't want to watch it? I do not. I say to myself I'll bet they know who likes to watch this. I'll bet they made a boxing match designed for the people who watch boxing.
Anyway I think I made my point. I'm gonna need to go in a minute and do some other things but it will be quite hilarious today to watch the criticisms. I think it's valid to say we want to get to a point where we have complete validation, verification that their nuclear risk is over. But if you ask me the best way to get there, the best way to get there is by developing trust. Because what's the biggest problem about denuclearizing North Korea? Definitely trust. They're not going to do it if they don't trust us and we're not going to be happy they're doing it if we don't trust them. Everything the president has done so far is to deal with the core problem. The core problem was always psychology. The core problem was do you trust that we don't want to attack your country? It's just not something we care about. Do we trust that they'd rather have a successful future than to keep nuclear weapons for what? For no reason. Right?
So that's what the president has set up. It's going to make it a lot easier to get to the end because of the good platform he's created here. All right that's enough for now. I gotta go do some other stuff and I will talk to you later.
bum-bum-bum-bum-bum hey everybody wake up punchy that's my new catchphrase I think that's everybody's catchphrase now and when I say wake up punchy I mean wake up and get ready for the best part of your day so far coffee with Scott Adams and it starts with the simultaneous sip and that goes like this ah that's some good simultaneous sipping so once again our president our our nickname er in chief has given one of the most classic nicknames we've seen yet for Robert De Niro his new nickname punchy now having watched dinero's let's say reactions to the president lately I thought to myself what would happen and by the way I knew knew nothing about Robert De Niro except you know what movies he's been in didn't know anything about his personal life and I said to myself what would happen if I googled his name and alcoholism and sure enough you get all kinds of hits referring to his drug and alcohol abuse and I thought to myself here's the most drug down to a violent guy who is who is criticizing a guy who has never had a drink or a drug and was literally in the middle of you know making peace with North Korea so it so wasn't that long ago where people imagined you know the people who were opposed to the president imagine that they were the good people they were the people were well-mannered there were the people who didn't say hateful things they were the good people they were the ones who loved each other they loved peace they loved those kinds of things but the president candidate Trump you know at the time he was a candidate Trump he's the opposite of our niceness he's he's a ball of hate and and darkness and every other ISM that you can think of but what happened while no one was watching complete reversal dinero is it's almost like he's taken on the role of whatever was the worst thing people imagined about candidate Trump everything that you imagined about candidate Trump is that he would stand in front of a crowd and start swearing and insulting a world leader right that's what people worried about president Trump and De Niro did that and he seems unstable yeah when you look at De Niro I'm you know I'm not a doctor so I'm not going to diagnose his mental health but he does have a well-documented history of drug abuse alcoholism bad behavior that part seems to be objectively true and so he's become the the exact thing that the other side imagined Trump would become while Trump was becoming nicer and making peace now of course President Trump had to punch back because he's a counter puncher and I think I laughed for half an hour after I saw wake up punchy it was just the perfect way for the President of the United States to end a you know humorous little jab back tweet so I don't think you can take the president's tweet too seriously it wasn't written to be serious it was written just to you know give a little poke back and to entertain his base which it did very very well now all of you I think are watching the reactions to the president's trip and the the generic agreement that they made to to make things better and this morning I'm reading that the president said that were were already safer essentially I forget what words he used but that the risk of war has now subsided and that you know we're safer than the way we were before his critics want to argue that point but here's the thing you don't really go to war with people that you're having nice conversations with and offering to give them money when was the last time that a country said hey if you let us we can make your country wealthier and we're not really asking anything in return except in a normal capitalist way if we invest you know people would expect a return but we just want to help how about that we just want to help when was the last time somebody nuked a country that was offering to help them that's not a thing so when the president said we're going to stop our war games that was as close as you can get to a declaration of peace because you know that shows that both parties are willing to you know sort of step back and in very small ways because everybody can just redo everything they've claimed they've stopped it would be easy for North Korea to start testing missiles it would be easy for us to start doing war games again so none of this is totally important in a physical realm but psychologically it just shows that we're no longer on the track to war and as long as we're not on that track and here's the important part we don't have any reason to get back on it there's no reason what what reason would you imagine that North Korea would say now let's go let's go make our nuclear arsenal twice as big now why what what possible reason would they have to do that likewise what possible reason would we have to you know attack their country or self there's nothing to gain so we've we've taken this situation where you had two countries that didn't quite understand the motives of the other didn't understand if the other was crazy or not didn't understand if there were bad intentions are good didn't really know and then what do we know this week well Kim and Trump have a much better understanding of the other president Trump has said that he trusts Kim and he thinks that Kim trusts him too now they're sceptics I believe when they heard that President Trump said he trusts him I believe that the the critics probably threw up in their mouths upon hearing that as a oh my god how could he fall for this you know don't doesn't he know the history of North Korean promises yes he does of course he does and does president Trump have 100% trust in his own mind that Kim will do the right thing well we don't we can't read his mind we don't know but it's unlikely it's a hundred percent because there aren't that many things there a hundred percent more likely Trump is willing into existence a situation that's better and what he would like to will into into existence is a situation of trust so what is the very best way to receive trust tell me tell me anybody anybody what is the best way to become trusted it give trust exactly psychologically speaking the very best way to to get trust from someone who is reluctant to give it is to give it that to them first now because we're the the larger country with the larger military giving trust first is a little bit easier and and it's a little bit more literally to to go first there now keep in mind that trust can always be taken back and that that doesn't mean that we you know give up on inspection or give up on you know making sure that we do what we need to do to document things are working in the right direction but in terms of what you say you know when asked do you trust the exact right answer was yes every other answer was the wrong answer right because in you know in private meetings you know on both sides they can express whatever doubts they have in private that makes perfect sense in public there was one right way to answer that question and Trump pin it which is yes I trust him and I think I'm sure he trusts was me as well because that actually creates he's creating that world he's not predicting it he's creating it by just defining it as true and then living in it and letting and letting him live in it as well uh-uh Colbert refutes me nightly well that's his job and why did he praise Kim jong-un same reason praising praising Kim is one of the ways that Kim will feel comfortable with the president it's one of the ways that Kim will learn to trust him it's one of the ways he'll have a good feeling because remember people I would use the facts to make decisions they use how they feel about things to make decisions so Trump is making Kim feel comfortable by complimenting him for the things he's doing right he's simply not focusing on the past both leaders have said explicitly they've said explicitly let's let the past go and and at this point it looks like the president has things right where he wants them now if you say to yourself hey but what about you know concrete promises of you know getting rid of their nukes and everything else we definitely want all that stuff but ask yourself is it easier for North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons when we're trusting that in public and complimenting the leader and offering to help and stopping our war games that are provocative you know is is that a better situation for him to go back to his own people and say look I think we've got something good here here's our one opportunity according to that video I just watched let's make something happen now it's very important this is this is why you you want a Bolton on the team the the value-added a Bolton is that nobody thinks he would have done any of those things I just mentioned in other words Bolton is the badass he's the bad cop and he's not going to be pleased until we have verification and we have you know real legitimate denuclearization in progress and and I don't think the Trump administration ever wants to be in a situation where later Bolton says hey I told them to do it this way and it didn't work out so I think they have the perfect set of assets in place for a good result there now I wanted to to put down to one idea that apparently there's there are many ticklish you know sensitive elements to making peace with North Korea and one of them is the the number of people who are alleged to be in prison camps and I've heard some people speculate that you can't loosen up the North because it would bring to light all the people who were in prison camps and there's so many of them it would be a big disruptive thing and so I asked myself what would be the best way to handle that because that does seem like a legitimate problem and here's the here's my solution that all proposed suppose that on a suppose that chairman Kim said the following in order to release the past I'm going to pardon all of the all of the people who are in prisons or work camps for political reasons that were not you know legitimate crimes let me say it differently so as opposed to normal crimes like you know murder and theft and stuff suppose he said that we're going to forget the past and I'm gonna pardon everybody who's in a gulag for criticizing the regime and I'm going to this part and will apply to anybody who did anything bad in a political context do you see where this is going it's a self pardon so in other words of pardoning everybody who did anything wrong politically would include all the people in the gulags who are only there for political purposes but it also includes himself right and it includes any family members or top aides now of course you'd have to say that from this day on if you do anything bad you know that's a new problem but to forget the past he's gonna have to pardon himself his family everybody close to him and at the same time everybody in the gulags but what happens when you release a few hundred thousand people into the public who don't like Chairman Kim it's dangerous right so here's the second part of the plan I'm just proposing this as a thought experiment by the way anybody who's new to my periscopes should understand that I don't believe I know what I'm talking about you know I I talk about these sort of things - let's say improve the diversification of the idea portfolio just to get some more ideas flowing that doesn't mean I have the right ones but I can help you think in a new way sometimes I suppose the second part of this idea is that those people who are released from the gulags are released to South Korea right because the people who come out of the gulags are the ones who are anti akin and having them in his territory at the moment they're released could be a little destabilizing so how about the first group that gets to you know to cross the border and gets to enjoy the the fruits of South Korea suppose they were the people from the gulags but you want to do this quietly you want this to be an agreement between South Korea North Korea keep the United States out of it you want South Korea to fund this you know this this process because these people have to be taken care of it wouldn't be that hard to give them a better lifestyle right off the bat than whatever they were doing in the gulag so you could create a situation where the people who were punished for their political crimes actually are the first ones who get the the added benefits of the South Koreans embrace now why is why would South Korea be the one to be involved with this and not the United States or China and anybody else here's the main reason you want to keep it on the down-low you don't want to make a public thing or a big one anyway you know the the news should know you should be reported but once it's reported that the people in the gulags have been pardoned and released to the south we should by mutual agreement just stop talking about it after that just stop talking about it because it's not going to help anybody the best thing we can do is take that pressure off of North Korea and just keep it quiet keep it on the down-low keep those people out of the news you could even have a law that says you know temporarily it could be like a one-year law or something where you say our South Korean media you're not allowed to talk to the people from the gulags you just can't get their personal stories for one year whatever might be longer than that and you and they say the reason is for privacy we respect the free the right of the press but there's a real privacy issue here for those people they don't want attention and it would not be safe for them to get right because they might still have people they love in the north so South Korea could probably pull that off because they would understand the importance of let's say keeping a respectful respectful position toward North Korea they probably understand about keeping things on the down-low they they would understand that this is just being helpful and we don't need to make things bad we're just trying to help these people in the gulags at the same time we're trying to make life easier for North Korea so that they can do their D nuclear rising and they don't have an unstable country at the same time so I just throw that out there as an idea getting people to not talk would be hard yes but you could ask the major the major publications to back off and I think South Koreans would largely want to get on that page you could just say hey this is a one-year moratorium just give them some privacy it's not about the news it's more about the privacy and you could also report yeah the facts so that you haven't glossed over anything you know you could you could do a press release that says these people were you know in these gulags for the following reasons life was brutal in the variety of ways but now they're here I'm just stick to the facts you don't have to sensation sensationalize it more than it is north K defectors have a great difficulty fitting into South Korea exactly yeah you would not simply release them into the wild you would need an extended period where they're there in something like you know resettlement camps there would be much better than a gulag and then you know maybe paired up with South Korean families or whatever you need to do to integrate them all right it would create reunification pressure I think a better way to say that would be it would be a small step toward reunification because on some level everybody likes that reunification if if it doesn't happen right away and it happens at a you know in a comfortable way so everybody likes it in concept and that would be one way to to make a small step in that direction yeah the 100 year plan for reunification I still like it Trump just nominated by Nobel Prize by Norwegian lawmakers you know I'm not I just don't know it's helpful at this point to be talking about any kind of Nobel Prizes I think that's something that I'm guilty of of jumping the gun and that stuff because it's sort of the wrong focus it's fun you know it was fun to talk about and it would be tremendous if some day you know events events justified that but at the moment probably just gets a dove ahead of the the facts on the ground a little bit now I want to tell you about I don't have the link but it was the The New Yorker magazine who wrote an article and you've seen the number of them like this about the video that President Trump shared with Kim now you may have seen my periscope in which I said it was brilliant persuasion and it got everything right and here's what people are getting wrong about that video and and I hope those of you who read my book when pinnacle II you probably anticipate what I'm gonna say so the people who criticize the video said things like this they said well it was weird all right that's not a reason right weird that's I don't know just a label you put on it it doesn't that doesn't work or anything people said it was you know Trin JH worthy weird over the top you know it's so much like a movie it's you know so if you look at the critics they'll have lots of insult words before the style that was used tell me that those of you who have been following me for a while tell me what they're missing tell me what they're missing when they label that they dismissively label and I don't mean just that they don't understand persuasion so they obviously are missing the the technique in it but what are they missing in the big picture of this thing yeah they're missing a reason that's true they're missing any kind of reason they just sort of assume that you agree with them and then they put interesting words on what they think you already agree I you know you're getting a you're saying a lot of things I'm watching your comments a lot of your comments are true and you're pointing out the the good technique that's in the video and that's that's all accurate it makes you think past the sale you know past piece to how good piece will be it's visual it does all those things but here's the big part that people miss and the funny thing is this is the thing that Trump gets right all the time and people who criticize Trump don't understand and get wrong all the time and I'm gonna work up to it all right do you remember when President Trump was first campaigning and one of the big complaints was that he spoke in something like a sixth grade vocabulary and just was so simple and and well simple I guess do you remember how the smart people criticized that and probably for about a year people kept saying yeah you know he's talking like a sixth grader that's bad and then he kept winning you know and became president while talking like a sixth grader and about that time people like George Lakoff who is you know a linguistics professor at Berkeley started saying things like um know that talking like a sixth grader is really the most effective way to talk he Trump was talking in a way that the audience was perfectly suited to accept in other words his style of talking was designed to be perfectly compatible with who he was talking to you noticed that when he has when the president has children in the Oval Office he speaks to them like you talked to children when he has punchy dinero going after him he talks to him in a way that is a little bit you know punching back and and humorous etc so he takes exactly the right tone when he meets with Kim jong-eun he goes into a diplomat almost a grandfatherly diplomat mode where he seemed to be embracing the younger diplomat just about the right tone what do the critics miss about the video that President Trump showed to Kim what they miss is President Trump did not make a video to show to The New Yorker magazine he didn't make a video to show to the New York Times he didn't make a video to show to the Washington Post he didn't make a video to show to his critics he didn't make a video to show on national TV he didn't make a video that he thought would be shown in the theaters he made a video for one guy was that the right style to pick for that one guy you know it was because you've seen you've seen the video that that one guy produces we've seen the stuff that comes out of North Korea right we've so we've seen the type of language that North Korea employs we see the videos that they may did president Trump's style in his video look a little bit familiar yes why am I the first person to point out that when you make a product the product should be designed for the customer the customer or in this case the audience he had an audience of one person one person and we know enough about that one person you know we're assuming that there were enough people who have studied Kim his profile they know what the North Korean vibe is they know what kind of things resonate etc this was designed for that one person and if you say to me hey that's not the way we Western people like to see our videos that seems weird I don't know it just looks a little racist to me you know to criticize the video because it assumes that everybody is going to respond the same way to the same style and and type of video that feels a little not inclusive it feels like you're not taking into account the legitimate cultural differences that a North Korean leader the way he views the world and the the type of media that he absorbs and the styles of things that he thinks feel right and what feels wrong I'm no expert on North Korea but to me it looked like that video hit the sweet spot of exactly the audience they were going to an audience of one now ask yourself who else told you what I just told you who else said of course it looks weird to us it's now for us you know what do you ever watch a children's cartoon on TV and you say to yourself this children's cartoon does not appeal to me do you know why it wasn't made for you you know when I watch a show like the No book or some you know teary crying ridiculous movie do I go into that movie and say they made this movie all wrong what's wrong with them they're don't they know that this movie does not compatible with me yes they know that they didn't make that movie for me they made it for people who like that sort of thing right when I watch a boxing match I don't like boxing they just don't enjoy it do I say to myself when I watch a boxing match hey they're doing this boxing match wrong because I don't want to watch it I do not I say to myself I'll bet they know who likes to watch this I'll bet they made a boxing match a design for the people who watch boxing anyway I think I made my point I'm gonna need to go in a minute and do some other things but it will be quite hilarious today to watch the criticisms I think it's valid to say we we want to get to a point where yeah we have complete you know validation verification that their nuclear risk is over but if he asked me the best way to get there the best way to get there is by developing trust because what's the biggest problem about denuclearizing North Korea definitely trust they're not going to do it if they don't trust us and we're not going to be happy they're doing it if we don't trust them everything the president has done so far is to deal with the core problem the core problem was always psychology the core problem was do you trust that we don't want to attack your country it's just not not something we care about do we trust that they'd rather have a successful you know future than to keep keep nuclear weapons for what for no reason right so that's that's what the president has set up it's going to make it a lot easier to get to the end because of the good you know the good platform he's created here all right that's enough for now I gotta go do some other stuff and I will talk to you later
bum-bum-bum-bum-bum hey everybody wake
up punchy
that's my new catchphrase I think that's
everybody's catchphrase now and when I
say wake up punchy
I mean wake up and get ready for the
best part of your day so far
coffee with Scott Adams and it starts
with the simultaneous sip and that goes
like this
ah that's some good simultaneous sipping
so once again our president our our
nickname er in chief has given one of
the most classic nicknames we've seen
yet for Robert De Niro his new nickname
punchy now having watched dinero's
let's say reactions to the president
lately I thought to myself what would
happen and by the way I knew knew
nothing about Robert De Niro except you
know what movies he's been in didn't
know anything about his personal life
and I said to myself what would happen
if I googled his name and alcoholism and
sure enough you get all kinds of hits
referring to his drug and alcohol abuse
and I thought to myself here's the most
drug down to a violent guy who is who is
criticizing a guy who has never had a
drink or a drug and was literally in the
middle of you know making peace with
North Korea so it so wasn't that long
ago where people imagined you know the
people who were opposed to the president
imagine that they were the good people
they were the people
were well-mannered there were the people
who didn't say hateful things they were
the good people they were the ones who
loved each other they loved peace they
loved those kinds of things but the
president candidate Trump you know at
the time he was a candidate Trump he's
the opposite of our niceness he's he's a
ball of hate and and darkness and every
other ISM that you can think of but what
happened while no one was watching
complete reversal dinero is it's almost
like he's taken on the role of whatever
was the worst thing people imagined
about candidate Trump everything that
you imagined about candidate Trump is
that he would stand in front of a crowd
and start swearing and insulting a world
leader right that's what people worried
about president Trump and De Niro did
that and he seems unstable yeah when you
look at De Niro I'm you know I'm not a
doctor so I'm not going to diagnose his
mental health but he does have a
well-documented history of drug abuse
alcoholism bad behavior that part seems
to be objectively true and so he's
become the the exact thing that the
other side imagined Trump would become
while Trump was becoming nicer and
making peace now of course President
Trump had to punch back because he's a
counter puncher and I think I laughed
for half an hour after I saw wake up
punchy it was just the perfect way for
the President of the United States to
end a you know humorous little jab back
tweet so I don't think you can take the
president's tweet too seriously it
wasn't written to be serious it was
written just to you know give a little
poke back and to entertain his base
which it did very very well
now all of you I think are watching the
reactions
to the president's trip and the the
generic agreement that they made to to
make things better and this morning I'm
reading that the president said that
were were already safer essentially I
forget what words he used but that the
risk of war has now subsided and that
you know we're safer than the way we
were before his critics want to argue
that point but here's the thing you
don't really go to war with people that
you're having nice conversations with
and offering to give them money when was
the last time that a country said hey if
you let us we can make your country
wealthier and we're not really asking
anything in return except in a normal
capitalist way if we invest you know
people would expect a return but we just
want to help how about that we just want
to help when was the last time somebody
nuked a country that was offering to
help them that's not a thing so when the
president said we're going to stop our
war games that was as close as you can
get to a declaration of peace because
you know that shows that both parties
are willing to you know sort of step
back and in very small ways because
everybody can just redo everything
they've claimed they've stopped it would
be easy for North Korea to start testing
missiles it would be easy for us to
start doing war games again so none of
this is totally important in a physical
realm but psychologically it just shows
that we're no longer on the track to war
and as long as we're not on that track
and here's the important part we don't
have any reason to get back on it
there's no reason what what reason would
you imagine that North Korea would say
now let's go let's go make our nuclear
arsenal twice as big now why what what
possible reason would they have to do
that likewise what possible reason would
we have to you know attack their country
or self there's nothing to gain so we've
we've taken this situation where you had
two countries that didn't quite
understand the motives of the other
didn't understand if the other was crazy
or not didn't understand if there were
bad intentions are good
didn't really know and then what do we
know this week
well Kim and Trump have a much better
understanding of the other president
Trump has said that he trusts Kim and he
thinks that Kim trusts him too now
they're sceptics I believe when they
heard that President Trump said he
trusts him I believe that the the
critics probably threw up in their
mouths upon hearing that as a oh my god
how could he fall for this you know
don't doesn't he know the history of
North Korean promises yes he does of
course he does
and does president Trump have 100% trust
in his own mind that Kim will do the
right thing well we don't we can't read
his mind we don't know but it's unlikely
it's a hundred percent because there
aren't that many things there a hundred
percent more likely Trump is willing
into existence a situation that's better
and what he would like to will into into
existence is a situation of trust so
what is the very best way to receive
trust tell me tell me anybody anybody
what is the best way to become trusted
it give trust exactly psychologically
speaking the very best way to to get
trust from someone who is reluctant to
give it is to give it that to them first
now because we're the the larger country
with the larger military giving trust
first is a little bit easier and and
it's a little bit more literally to to
go first there now keep in mind that
trust can always be taken back and that
that doesn't mean that we you know give
up on inspection
or give up on you know making sure that
we do what we need to do to document
things are working in the right
direction but in terms of what you say
you know when asked do you trust the
exact right answer was yes every other
answer was the wrong answer right
because in you know in private meetings
you know on both sides they can express
whatever doubts they have in private
that makes perfect sense in public there
was one right way to answer that
question and Trump pin it which is yes I
trust him and I think I'm sure he trusts
was me as well because that actually
creates he's creating that world he's
not predicting it he's creating it by
just defining it as true and then living
in it and letting and letting him live
in it as well uh-uh Colbert refutes me
nightly well that's his job and why did
he praise Kim jong-un same reason
praising praising Kim is one of the ways
that Kim will feel comfortable with the
president it's one of the ways that Kim
will learn to trust him it's one of the
ways he'll have a good feeling because
remember people I would use the facts to
make decisions they use how they feel
about things to make decisions so Trump
is making Kim feel comfortable by
complimenting him for the things he's
doing right he's simply not focusing on
the past both leaders have said
explicitly they've said explicitly let's
let the past go and and at this point it
looks like the president has things
right where he wants them now if you say
to yourself hey but what about you know
concrete promises of you know getting
rid of their nukes and everything else
we definitely want all that stuff but
ask yourself is it easier for North
Korea to give up its nuclear weapons
when we're trusting that
in public and complimenting the leader
and offering to help and stopping our
war games that are provocative you know
is is that a better situation for him to
go back to his own people and say look I
think we've got something good here
here's our one opportunity according to
that video I just watched let's make
something happen
now it's very important this is this is
why you you want a Bolton on the team
the the value-added a Bolton is that
nobody thinks he would have done any of
those things I just mentioned in other
words Bolton is the badass he's the bad
cop and he's not going to be pleased
until we have verification and we have
you know real legitimate
denuclearization in progress and and I
don't think the Trump administration
ever wants to be in a situation where
later Bolton says hey I told them to do
it this way and it didn't work out so I
think they have the perfect set of
assets in place for a good result there
now I wanted to to put down to one idea
that apparently there's there are many
ticklish you know sensitive elements to
making peace with North Korea and one of
them is the the number of people who are
alleged to be in prison camps and I've
heard some people speculate that you
can't loosen up the North because it
would bring to light all the people who
were in prison camps and there's so many
of them it would be a big disruptive
thing and so I asked myself what would
be the best way to handle that because
that does seem like a legitimate problem
and here's the here's my solution that
all proposed suppose that on a suppose
that chairman Kim said the following in
order to release the past I'm going to
pardon all of the all of the people who
are in prisons or work camps for
political reasons that were not
you know legitimate crimes let me say it
differently so as opposed to normal
crimes like you know murder and theft
and stuff suppose he said that we're
going to forget the past and I'm gonna
pardon everybody who's in a gulag for
criticizing the regime and I'm going to
this part and will apply to anybody who
did anything bad in a political context
do you see where this is going
it's a self pardon so in other words of
pardoning everybody who did anything
wrong politically would include all the
people in the gulags who are only there
for political purposes but it also
includes himself right and it includes
any family members or top aides now of
course you'd have to say that from this
day on if you do anything bad you know
that's a new problem but to forget the
past he's gonna have to pardon himself
his family everybody close to him and at
the same time everybody in the gulags
but what happens when you release a few
hundred thousand people into the public
who don't like Chairman Kim it's
dangerous right so here's the second
part of the plan I'm just proposing this
as a thought experiment by the way
anybody who's new to my periscopes
should understand that I don't believe I
know what I'm talking about you know I I
talk about these sort of things - let's
say improve the diversification of the
idea portfolio just to get some more
ideas flowing that doesn't mean I have
the right ones but I can help you think
in a new way
sometimes I suppose the second part of
this idea is that those people who are
released from the gulags are released to
South Korea right because the people who
come out of the gulags are the ones who
are anti akin and having them in his
territory at the moment they're released
could be a little destabilizing so how
about the first group that gets to
you know to cross the border and gets to
enjoy the the fruits of South Korea
suppose they were the people from the
gulags but you want to do this quietly
you want this to be an agreement between
South Korea North Korea
keep the United States out of it you
want South Korea to fund this you know
this this process because these people
have to be taken care of it wouldn't be
that hard to give them a better
lifestyle right off the bat than
whatever they were doing in the gulag so
you could create a situation where the
people who were punished for their
political crimes actually are the first
ones who get the the added benefits of
the South Koreans embrace now why is why
would South Korea be the one to be
involved with this and not the United
States or China and anybody else here's
the main reason you want to keep it on
the down-low you don't want to make a
public thing or a big one anyway you
know the the news should know you should
be reported but once it's reported that
the people in the gulags have been
pardoned and released to the south we
should by mutual agreement just stop
talking about it after that just stop
talking about it because it's not going
to help anybody the best thing we can do
is take that pressure off of North Korea
and just keep it quiet keep it on the
down-low keep those people out of the
news you could even have a law that says
you know temporarily it could be like a
one-year law or something where you say
our South Korean media you're not
allowed to talk to the people from the
gulags you just can't get their personal
stories for one year whatever might be
longer than that and you and they say
the reason is for privacy we respect the
free the right of the press but there's
a real privacy issue here for those
people they don't want attention and it
would not be safe for them to get
right because they might still have
people they love in the north so South
Korea could probably pull that off
because they would understand the
importance of let's say keeping a
respectful respectful position toward
North Korea
they probably understand about keeping
things on the down-low
they they would understand that this is
just being helpful and we don't need to
make things bad we're just trying to
help these people in the gulags at the
same time we're trying to make life
easier for North Korea so that they can
do their D nuclear rising and they don't
have an unstable country at the same
time so I just throw that out there as
an idea getting people to not talk would
be hard yes but you could ask the major
the major publications to back off and I
think South Koreans would largely want
to get on that page you could just say
hey this is a one-year moratorium just
give them some privacy it's not about
the news it's more about the privacy and
you could also report yeah the facts so
that you haven't glossed over anything
you know you could you could do a press
release that says these people were you
know in these gulags for the following
reasons life was brutal in the variety
of ways but now they're here
I'm just stick to the facts you don't
have to sensation sensationalize it more
than it is north K defectors have a
great difficulty fitting into South
Korea exactly yeah you would not simply
release them into the wild you would
need an extended period where they're
there in something like you know
resettlement camps there would be much
better than a gulag and then you know
maybe paired up with South Korean
families or whatever you need to do to
integrate them
all right
it would create reunification pressure I
think a better way to say that would be
it would be a small step toward
reunification because on some level
everybody likes that reunification if if
it doesn't happen right away and it
happens at a you know in a comfortable
way so everybody likes it in concept and
that would be one way to to make a small
step in that direction
yeah the 100 year plan for reunification
I still like it
Trump just nominated by Nobel Prize by
Norwegian lawmakers you know I'm not I
just don't know it's helpful at this
point to be talking about any kind of
Nobel Prizes I think that's something
that I'm guilty of of jumping the gun
and that stuff because it's sort of the
wrong focus it's fun you know it was fun
to talk about and it would be tremendous
if some day you know events events
justified that but at the moment
probably just gets a dove ahead of the
the facts on the ground a little bit now
I want to tell you about I don't have
the link but it was the The New Yorker
magazine who wrote an article and you've
seen the number of them like this about
the video that President Trump shared
with Kim now you may have seen my
periscope in which I said it was
brilliant persuasion and it got
everything right and here's what people
are getting wrong about that video and
and I hope those of you who read my book
when pinnacle II you probably anticipate
what I'm gonna say so the people who
criticize the video said things like
this they said well it was weird all
right that's not a reason right weird
that's I don't know just a label you put
on it it doesn't
that doesn't work or anything people
said it was you know Trin JH worthy
weird over the top you know it's so much
like a movie it's you know so if you
look at the critics they'll have lots of
insult words before the style that was
used tell me that those of you who have
been following me for a while tell me
what they're missing tell me what
they're missing when they label that
they dismissively label and I don't mean
just that they don't understand
persuasion so they obviously are missing
the the technique in it but what are
they missing in the big picture of this
thing yeah they're missing a reason
that's true they're missing any kind of
reason they just sort of assume that you
agree with them and then they put
interesting words on what they think you
already agree I you know you're getting
a you're saying a lot of things I'm
watching your comments a lot of your
comments are true and you're pointing
out the the good technique that's in the
video and that's that's all accurate it
makes you think past the sale you know
past piece to how good piece will be
it's visual it does all those things but
here's the big part that people miss and
the funny thing is this is the thing
that Trump gets right all the time and
people who criticize Trump don't
understand and get wrong all the time
and I'm gonna work up to it all right do
you remember when President Trump was
first campaigning and one of the big
complaints was that he spoke in
something like a sixth grade vocabulary
and just was so simple and and well
simple I guess do you remember how the
smart people criticized that and
probably for about a year people kept
saying yeah you know he's talking like a
sixth grader
that's bad and then he kept winning you
know and became president while talking
like a sixth grader and about that time
people like
George Lakoff who is you know a
linguistics professor at Berkeley
started saying things like um know that
talking like a sixth grader is really
the most effective way to talk
he Trump was talking in a way that the
audience was perfectly suited to accept
in other words his style of talking was
designed to be perfectly compatible with
who he was talking to you noticed that
when he has when the president has
children in the Oval Office he speaks to
them like you talked to children when he
has punchy dinero going after him he
talks to him in a way that is a little
bit you know punching back and and
humorous etc so he takes exactly the
right tone when he meets with Kim
jong-eun he goes into a diplomat almost
a grandfatherly diplomat mode where he
seemed to be embracing the younger
diplomat just about the right tone what
do the critics miss about the video that
President Trump showed to Kim what they
miss is President Trump did not make a
video to show to The New Yorker magazine
he didn't make a video to show to the
New York Times he didn't make a video to
show to the Washington Post he didn't
make a video to show to his critics he
didn't make a video to show on national
TV he didn't make a video that he
thought would be shown in the theaters
he made a video for one guy was that the
right style to pick for that one guy you
know it was because you've seen you've
seen the video that that one guy
produces we've seen the stuff that comes
out of North Korea right we've so we've
seen the type of language that North
Korea employs we see the videos that
they may
did president Trump's style in his video
look a little bit familiar yes why am I
the first person to point out that when
you make a product the product should be
designed for the customer the customer
or in this case the audience he had an
audience of one person one person and we
know enough about that one person you
know we're assuming that there were
enough people who have studied Kim his
profile they know what the North Korean
vibe is they know what kind of things
resonate etc this was designed for that
one person and if you say to me hey
that's not the way we Western people
like to see our videos that seems weird
I don't know it just looks a little
racist to me you know to criticize the
video because it assumes that everybody
is going to respond the same way to the
same style and and type of video that
feels a little not inclusive it feels
like you're not taking into account the
legitimate cultural differences that a
North Korean leader the way he views the
world and the the type of media that he
absorbs and the styles of things that he
thinks feel right and what feels wrong
I'm no expert on North Korea but to me
it looked like that video hit the sweet
spot of exactly the audience they were
going to an audience of one now ask
yourself who else told you what I just
told you who else said of course it
looks weird to us it's now for us you
know what do you ever watch a children's
cartoon on TV and you say to yourself
this children's cartoon does not appeal
to me do you know why it wasn't made for
you you know when I watch a show like
the No
book or some you know teary crying
ridiculous movie do I go into that movie
and say they made this movie all wrong
what's wrong with them
they're don't they know that this movie
does not compatible with me yes they
know that they didn't make that movie
for me
they made it for people who like that
sort of thing right when I watch a
boxing match
I don't like boxing they just don't
enjoy it do I say to myself when I watch
a boxing match hey they're doing this
boxing match wrong because I don't want
to watch it I do not I say to myself
I'll bet they know who likes to watch
this I'll bet they made a boxing match a
design for the people who watch boxing
anyway I think I made my point I'm gonna
need to go in a minute and do some other
things but it will be quite hilarious
today to watch the criticisms I think
it's valid to say we we want to get to a
point where yeah we have complete you
know validation verification that their
nuclear risk is over but if he asked me
the best way to get there the best way
to get there is by developing trust
because what's the biggest problem about
denuclearizing North Korea definitely
trust they're not going to do it if they
don't trust us and we're not going to be
happy they're doing it if we don't trust
them everything the president has done
so far is to deal with the core problem
the core problem was always psychology
the core problem was do you trust that
we don't want to attack your country
it's just not not something we care
about do we trust that they'd rather
have a successful you know future than
to keep keep nuclear weapons for what
for no reason right
so that's that's what the president has
set up it's going to make it a lot
easier to get to the end because of the
good you know the good platform he's
created here all right that's enough for
now I gotta go do some other stuff and I
will talk to you later
