ake it mean anything you want. But if you look at the context it's harder. So I don't believe... Let me tell you what the Washington Post did. Oh my God thank you. Right, I don't encourage you to do gigantic super chats but Ryan I appreciate it.

All right. Here's what the Washington Post did. If you heard my comments in context they're much easier to go down, right? That's why a number of Black pundits have looked at my comments in context and then concluded oh that's fine. I don't know if you know that but Black people who are looking at it in context are fine with it and they're telling me every day privately and also on Twitter right now. The ones who haven't looked into the context they're pretty worked up. They're pretty worked up.

So here's what the Washington Post does. They start with the story of what I said which is the thing that gets everybody riled up. They do add a little context but it's at the end. If you have it at the end that's a hit piece, right? Because they could have added it at the front. All you'd have to do is cut and paste. Just cut the end, put it up at the top. Here's how the story could have read. Adams made the following comments. Then just show the comments. People interpreted it to be racist. Adams addressed those comments the following way. And then people who saw the comments addressed decided it was actually helpful. Did I lie? Is any of that a lie? It's not. If you just said here's the context, here's his additional explanations. People have looked at it, are happy that it wasn't racist or not what they thought it was anyway. And that's the end of it. But there's still an outrage. Would any of that be untrue? It wouldn't be. Now the way they wrote it was also completely true but it was written to mislead intentionally.

So look at the stories today. Story number one, the media and social media especially lied to you about the source of the Wuhan virus, right? That's the media. And now they're lying to you about me but they're doing it in this clever way where they just arrange the information so it's presented as a lie but there are no lies in it. There are no lies in it anywhere but it's organized to present a lie.

All right. So here's the thing and you can check this yourself. Check any of the major media coverage of me and see if you can find them describing my explanation of why the Rasmussen poll wasn't the important part of the thing. So by the way a number of people have said hey that's just one poll. Yeah we can't rely on one poll and they're right. And I should have been more clear that I was using the poll as an introduction to the topic. But the bigger reason is not the poll. You could take the poll out of the story and my point would be the same but my messaging would probably be better.

So here's the real messaging which I didn't do a good job of in my off-the-cuff stuff. We know we have a situation in this country in which there are indications of racial discontent. So there's Rasmussen poll which we all agree cannot be relied on just by itself. But I suppose the Rasmussen poll was off by a hundred percent. That'd be pretty big, wouldn't it? A poll that's off by 100. So let's say that instead of nearly half of Black respondents not being willing to say that being white is okay, that was the poll. I suppose it was only half of that or let's say I take out the part of people who are just unwilling to answer it and just say well that's something different. So suppose it's half that size. Suppose it's a quarter of Black Americans thought about it and said yeah I'm not willing to say being white's okay. Would that change my point? Would the larger point be different if the Rasmussen poll was off a lot like just way off? It wouldn't be any different at all. But it also is very much in agreement with a Gallup poll from a few years ago. This shows that race relations took a dive I think around the time of Trayvon Martin and when the media found that they could get a lot of money by ginning up racial hatred. So if you look at the Gallup poll of race relations it sort of is flat for years, just years flat, flat, flat. Trayvon Martin and then it stays low after that. Why did it stay low? Was it just because of one story? No, it's because the media decided that that kind of story was the kind that really gets people going. So the media decides to feed us non-stop white people are racist stories because it's really good content. Then you add to that the ESG and the DEI and the training that is now the major narrative. The thing that schools are teaching the kids and the things that corporations are talking about and they're creating a narrative collectively. And then social media is a big part of this of course. So if you add the media, I should have said media not social media, but if you add all these forces they created a narrative. And I won't say what the percentage is but there is some amount of the Black population that's poisoned. They're just poisoned by the narrative. They are victims. They are literally victims. Now the white population is just as much victims in a different way because the media is not telling us anything like the truth. They didn't tell us about the Wuhan virus right? Pretty much. Was it or another story? Oh the Katie Hobbs story I'm not sure that that's even true. We'll find out. Don't know if the collapsing China is true. We don't know if the Ukraine war stuff is true. Basically the media is unreliable. I guess you know that.

So no matter what percentage of the Black population has been poisoned by this narrative, would you agree with the following statement? That all of these forces are pushing it into more like whatever it is now. It's going to be more of it because the forces that caused it are all in play. Agreed? All right. So if you imagine that the Black population is victim, which I believe they are victims of programming that is not in their best interest. It looks like it's in their best interest because you know the equity and the fairness and stuff and there's a lot of good. There's probably a lot good in there. I'm not going to say it's all bad, right? I'm just saying if you haven't accounted for the cost of it then you're not done with the analysis. The benefits are obvious. Hey we'll treat everybody better. I like that. The cost is that there's a cost on the white population because they're demonized by the collective forces here. And that there is a predictable response. The predictable response at least one of them should be to put some distance between people who have been victimized and are therefore weaponized. Here's another word for it. I would say that the media and our education system are weaponizing part of the Black population. And not necessarily physical weapons. I'm talking about intellectually weaponized to have an immediate racial frame on things that maybe you don't need a racial frame on. Okay, so that's the story.

So everybody who says Scott you relied on Rasmussen, they're correct in their criticism that the way I presented it looked like I was relying on that. That's a good criticism. But it's not. I wouldn't have brought it up except for this. This is the reason I'm talking about it. The Rasmussen was just a sideshow. It was just an introduction to the topic.

So here's what happened. See if this sounds familiar to anything else you've ever seen happen in public. Here was the initial crime. I advised. I gave some advice that everybody agrees with. I gave some advice that everyone agrees with. Black people, white people, poor people, rich people, everyone, literally everyone. And was it useful? Was it useful? Is it useful to know the costs and the benefits of your policies or do you only want to know the benefits? Is useful, right? Well actually let me say maybe it didn't turn out useful but the intention, the intention of everything I do on livestream is to allow people to think more productively so that their lives are better. Does anybody doubt that? Is right by here who thinks that I'm doing any of this for money? Like this stuff it would be the worst way to make money. Do you know how I make money? Or I used to keep my mouth shut and make Dilbert comics. That's how you make money. That was a really good way to make money. I mean it ended yesterday but so I'm unemployed at the moment I guess. This is monetized so sort of a little bit. Ego. So he says ego. Am I doing it for ego? It's a trick question. Do I do this for ego? No you're too kind. The answer is yes. But as I've told you many times I never do anything for one reason. I never do anything for one reason. I mean there might be some exceptions but I wouldn't do this for one reason. So people are saying hey ego to which I say yes. If I do good work that people appreciate my ego will be satisfied. See that's looking at all the variables. So I'm trying to be consistent and look at all the variables.

All right. So I gave some advice that everyone agrees with. That if there's a population of people that has been programmed, this is the important part, has been programmed to have a feeling about you. This would include women in the #MeToo era. So in the Mike Pence sense you should avoid them. It would include people who have Trump signs and MAGA hats if you're Black. I would say maybe avoid that neighborhood. Is that bad advice? Now I know most of you who are Trump supporters you say but wait we're not racist don't do that. And I agree virtually. I don't know many racist conservatives. You just don't. At least not in the sort of public sphere. But is there anybody who would say that there are no racists in the Republican world? Would anybody say that there are no racist Republicans? Now remember they're racists in every group. They're clearly racists in every group. So if you were Black should you take into consideration that your neighbors have Republican signs in the yard? Should you take that into consideration? Well if you're a Black conservative it's a plus. You actually probably would be treated better than most people. If you're Black and left-leaning you might have some hesitance, wouldn't you?

Now in all of these questions it's got to be a matter of degree, doesn't it? If your problem with another group was just somebody said skepticism I wouldn't change where I live because of some vague skepticism. And likewise I would say that Republicans are actually a pretty good group to live around. So if for most people it'd be a good place to live but you might have feelings that that group had been weaponized by the media because a little bit of that is happening there. There's so many videos going around of Black people beating up non-Black people. If you were Black does that worry you? Oh let me ask that question. That's a good question. The videos that get viral they seem to be and there's one going around of the Black student beating a teacher nearly to death. It's all over the place. Wouldn't you agree, those of you who are Black who are watching this, wouldn't you agree that's bad for you? That's like programming white people to have a view that's not represented, right? So what do you say that the problem is people being programmed with bad thoughts?

Now if you saw more and more, just hypothetically, let's say you're Black and you saw more and more of these videos and every one of them it seems like oh my God it's like they're really going after us now. Wouldn't you think twice before you moved into a neighborhood that you thought had been programmed with that frame of mind? I mean it seems like a reasonable thing to do. And yet they would say nothing about all Republicans. It would say nothing about all Republicans. It would just say that thi