re pointing. That's it. Otherwise its mouth and its ass are the same. And so I said to myself, huh, I did not know that nature had a creature that can talk about politics on Twitter. I'll let that sink in a little bit.

All right. So of course all the news is about gun violence and mass shootings and white supremacists. Let's talk about that. Tucker Carlson got in a little — well, he wasn't in any trouble, but he caused a little controversy, a little more than usual. And it's because on the show last night he said that white supremacy is a hoax. Now he also said this: white supremacists exist, there aren't very many of them in the country, and that in total their impact is small. And so therefore it's a hoax. And then he announced that he was going on vacation. So how did CNN then cover this? Well they started... so this is the anatomy of how fake news is created. It's actually very clever and it's diabolical to the extreme. And sometimes you can't tell when CNN doesn't know what they're doing, meaning that it's somehow accidental based on just ordinary bias. Now when do they know exactly what they're doing? And this is one of those cases where we're pretty sure they know exactly what they're doing.

So Tucker of course is a huge critic of CNN. So you would expect that their opinion people would come at him pretty hard, and sure enough they did. But the way they did it is very clever and can teach us something. All right, so the first thing they did is they connected two random things and acted as if they have meaning. So they said that Tucker must be in trouble. They suggested — they did not say it's true, they simply suggested — that Fox News has a history when one of its hosts says something that other people think is racist or just provocative, their hosts go on vacation suspiciously to sort of get them out of the line of fire. Now it's summer and a lot of people go on vacation in the summer, and Tucker said he was going on vacation. And so CNN with no evidence whatsoever makes it seem as though his vacation is sort of a confession that he'd done something bad. But there's no evidence of that. What there is evidence of is that it's August and a lot of people go on vacation. In fact if you were going to pick a month to go on a vacation and you were in the news business, what month would you pick? Well you'd pick December because everybody's on vacation, but you'd also pick August. That would be the time you go on vacation. It's the slow news month.

So first they make this connection that's not a real connection. But by simply putting the two in your mind you say, oh, even Tucker Carlson or at least even his bosses know he's gone too far. None of this is evidence. It's completely invented. All right, so that's the first dirty trick. But the next one is the best. All right, so they're pushing back. There were two opinion pieces. I'll talk about Brian Stelter's piece on CNN.com. They're both pushing back against Tucker's claim that all the noise about danger from white supremacists is a hoax. Now here's how they push back on it.

Now one way to push back on it would be to produce one white supremacist and put them on TV and say, here people, I've now proven that white supremacists exist. Have you ever seen a white supremacist? I never have. I've seen every other kind of racist because racism comes in lots of different flavors. Yeah, there's just all kinds of different racists. So if you asked me have I seen racists? Oh yeah. Have I seen white nationalists, people who would prefer the country if you stayed away? Oh yeah, I've seen those. Have I ever seen a white supremacist? I haven't. I never have.

So how would you — what is the easiest way to prove that white supremacists exist? Put one on TV. Well where is it? Where's the white supremacist? Even Richard Spencer isn't a white supremacist, right? If you look into it he would not espouse white supremacy. He's more of a white nationalist I think would be a better way to put it. So you have to ask yourself where is the... well you don't ask yourself this. Look for the dog that isn't barking. If white supremacy is a really big problem it shouldn't be hard to find a few and put them on TV so that we can see number one they exist. David Duke actually is not a white supremacist as I understand it. He's a racist and I think he's a white nationalist. That might explain him. So I'm not going to try to explain David Duke because I condemn him totally. But I don't believe anybody's ever gone on CNN in my memory and said that one race was superior and should be treated that way. I don't think I've seen it anyway.

So that's the first thing. But here's the clever sleight of hand. When I tell you this you're all going to be shaking your head so hard and knocking your heads on the counter so hard that this might be dangerous. So you might want to put on a helmet before I read this next part. I swear to God Brian Stelter wrote this on CNN. All right, you ready for this? He says on white supremacy, facts first. Okay, so now Brian's going to give us some facts about white supremacy and those facts will debunk Tucker Carlson's view that the whole white supremacist thing is a hoax.

So here are his facts to debunk it. An audit by the Anti-Defamation League. Okay, this is good stuff. He's right on point, talking about the right topic as we refer to an organization that studies these things. Okay, this is good. And what does he say? What does the Anti-Defamation League find? The white supremacist murders in the U.S. quote more than doubled in 2017. Okay, that's serious. And more than doubled. Now when you say something more than doubled, the point of saying it more than doubled is to say it's a problem. What's the next thing you say after that? Right after you say it more than doubled you say from this number to this number, right?

So I'll read that part. Oh that's not there. He said it doubled and he didn't say from what to what. So I looked at the source. It doesn't say from what to what either. He says it doubled without giving us a number. Did it go from two to four? One to two? And why are the numbers only from 2017, two years ago, if we're worried about a sudden increase of something? Is 2017 what we want? No it is not. So first of all his numbers are old. 2017 would not tell you that there is a recent spike in anything because that leaves out the most recent two years. If you talk about a recent spike it includes the last two years. Secondly he says it doubled without saying what the number is and even the source doesn't say what the number is.

But I guess it gets creepier. Here's the rest of the sentence: with far-right extremist groups and white supremacists quote responsible for 59 percent of all extremist-related fatalities in the U.S. in 2017. Okay, so if you add together far-right extremists plus white supremacists they're responsible for the majority of the extremist fatalities. Okay, that's good to know. Now he'll next tell us what percentage of that was the white supremacists because that's the topic, right? The topic is not right-wing deaths. Tucker was talking about white supremacists. So the next thing he'll say is how many of those were the white supremacists. Let me read that. It's not there.

So you see what he did. He took the white supremacists for which he had no numbers that were current and even no numbers that were not current. He added it with another group for which we do have numbers and said if you add those two together it's 59% of all the extremist-related fatalities. Let me read you another sentence that's equally true. If you add together all of the murders caused by cartoonists plus extremists, then they would account for 59 percent of all the extremist fatalities in 2017. That's true, right? If you add together all of the people who were murdered by dogs — dogs with guns, actual dogs like physically a dog, you know, not talking about people, I'm talking about actual dogs — if you add to the number the number of people who were killed by dogs with guns to right-wing extremists, they would account for almost all of the extremist murders.

So this is a clever trick by CNN. As they start talking about white supremacists to debunk that Tucker says white supremacy is a hoax, they show no example of even one white supremacist, no picture of one, no writing from one, no video of one who makes that claim by the way. And I know what you're going to say. What about the Charlottesville people marching with tiki torches? We've got lots of video of that. They're white supremacists, right? Are they? Are you a white supremacist if you want to remove the Jews from your country because the Jews are doing too well? Is wanting to remove the people who are doing too well a statement that you are supreme? It's kind of the opposite, I would say. If you look what the people marching in Charlottesville were saying out loud is that the group that they did not like, the Jews in their words, were taking their blood and treasure. In other words they were being very successful. They were actually criticizing the success of a group. That's literally the opposite of saying you're awesome and the other group is bad. They're actually saying the other group is doing better than them and they would like them out of the country because they're taking all their stuff. Now they're racists, they're white nationalists. Those are all true. But it's the supremacy part that gets weird.

Now so what you see is that... oh and then what CNN likes to make lots of references to the El Paso killer's manifesto. Complains, problems with that. Number one, it is not in evidence that the shooter wrote that manifesto. Did you know that? Did you know it's not in evidence that the shooter wrote the manifesto? What is in evidence is that it was uploaded to 8chan from someone who was not the shooter. So we have no evidence that the source, the only source we can trace, was a Facebook post from someone else. Now there's some possibility that the shooter put it on somebody else's Facebook or you know somehow it got on Facebook from the shooter and then it went to 8chan. But the evidence suggests he didn't write it. Have you seen that on CNN? Probably not. We heard this from the founder of 8chan and he would know where it came from.

Secondly, how many people have read the manifesto? I read it and I gotta tell you on your right back. So I read the manifesto and I was looking for the part where Trump inspired him to be a white supremacist. It's not really there. What it is is — and I tweeted a link from Byron York who's talking about this — I had exactly the same reaction as Byron York did. If you actually read the manifesto you'd walk away saying what's this got to do with Trump? The manifesto literally says in direct words this is not about Trump. I had these feelings before Trump. In direct words he says it wasn't Trump. But if it wasn't Trump who is it most evocative of? Who is the person that is most referenced in the manifesto? Well not by name but the person most directly connected with what he's talking about in the manifesto is Andrew Yang. Because the shooter in El Paso was talking about universal basic income and how it will be necessary because the robots are coming. Who says that? Trump may have said it but it's basically Andrew Yang's whole thesis. And if the robots come and take away our jobs we'll need some kind of universal basic income. Andrew Yang's primary platform. And the only way that works is if you secure the border because if you're giving away free money to anybody who shows up it doesn't work. Right? Everybody understands that. Now Andrew Yang doesn't make that case but I think that's a question he needs to be asked, doesn't it? It needs to be asked of Andrew Yang. How can you do UBI unless you're controlling the border? That doesn't make sense. Those two are opposites. They can't exist at the same time.

So the entire... so what CNN can do and the anti-Trumpers are doing is that they're suggesting that the manifesto is Trump-inspired because they know nobody's going to read it. And if they did they would find you know maybe one sentence that they could pull out, say yeah this sounds like Trump. But there are just as many sentences that sound like Elizabeth Warren or Andrew Yang and they'll just ignore those. And they know you're not going to read it so they can characterize it any way they want. So its complexity — it's long and rambled and it's obviously just a crazy person — its complexity allows them to claim that it supports their point of view. It just doesn't. It just doesn't. It's fake news.

All right, so here's the basic sleight of hand that the anti-Trumpers and really anti-Americans I would say — because the people who are moving hard against Trump are really moving hard against 60 million people in this country so I would say anti-American. If people were criticizing you know thousands of people in America I'd say well thousands that's barely anything compared to 300 million. So those people are just criticizing you know some people with bad ideas. But if you're criticizing 60 million citizens of this country you're anti-American by definition, right? Criticizing 60 million, that's a good chunk of the whole country right there.

All right, so here's the sleight of hand they use. So it starts out with President Trump says I'm a nationalist. He doesn't use those words necessarily but his supporters say we're nationalists, we care about our country first. So CNN will say you're nationalists and I'm noticing that a lot of people at the rallies are white. So would it be fair to say that you're nationalists and that most of you are white? And people would say well that's true but I don't like where this is going. So if you're nationalist and many of you are white, basically there's not much difference between that and saying you're white nationalist. Well of course there is a big difference because white nationalists don't want other people to come unless they're white. But a nationalist is open to everybody you know as long as the rules are followed and the borders are controlled. So they say nationalist equals white nationalist. That's the first leap. And then from white nationalist they just throw in the synonym white supremacist as if there's no difference. So you know white supremacist, white nationalist, nationalist who happens to be white. Okay, leave the same thing.

So they use this you know sleight of hand to get you all the way to nationalist equals white nationalist, white nationalist basically the same as white supremacist, white supremacist is Hitler, obviously there's a Holocaust coming. Now when you hear that it should make you angry. It should make you think oh my God what kind of a country do I live in where news networks can push ridiculous... not like that. Well where'd they learn it? Where did CNN learn to turn nationalists into white nationalists, to turn white nationalists into white supremacists and turn white supremacists into obviously the president is Hitler? Here's how they learned it. They learned it from the right. They learned it from Fox News. How many times on Fox News have you seen Democrats say they want health care which Fox News turns into health care so I guess you're a socialist. And if you're a socialist you're a communist and if you're a communist you're Stalin and if you're Stalin you want to kill tens of millions of people you're Venezuela, right? Same thing.

A person who wants to keep the United States largely the same but have better health care is not a socialist. They're you know democratic socialist at best and they're certainly not communists. So first of all they're not socialists. You're socialists would make everybody share everything. It would be completely incompatible with capitalism. So they're pushing some socialist policies within a larger capitalist setting that Fox News calls all that socialism and then they just sort of without making a break call it communism then it turns into Venezuela and then it turns into Stalin and then it turns into tens of millions of people killed. You should disregard both sides when they do that. All right, if they're taking your definition and working it through this word machine until it turns into either Stalin or Hitler, you're not talking, you're not listening to people you should pay attention to.

All right, and so I would like to offer this challenge. I would like somebody to produce a white supremacist who I could deprogram. So I'm going to offer to deprogram a white supremacist. I'll do it on... I'll do it around here. I'd have to know it's a real white supremacist. So here's the first part of the challenge. Number one I don't think any exist who are not actually observably insane. So if somebody could put a sentence together you know went to college maybe... you know don't even need the college, just somebody who can make a coherent statement and also refers to themselves or at least by their policies are clearly white supremacists. I need you to... I'm offering to deprogram that person away from their destructive ideology. But you have to find me one. I've never met one and I don't know that they exist because those tiki torch people were white inferiorists. There's a word. What's the opposite of supremacy? Yeah, the tiki torch guys were worried that white people can't compete. That was their whole... that's what they were chanting literally. That's what they were saying out loud. A chant that the white people can't compete. So they don't qualify. But if there's any in that group who thinks they're supreme I will deprogram them. I'll offer to do that. Watch how no white supremacist can be identified.

Now I would say that Tucker Carlson would be accurate in calling the whole white supremacy a hoax if nobody can produce one at all. You can't produce one, put him on TV. Let's see what they have to say. If you can't produce one I'm offering to deprogram that person. I'll solve it for you. I'll do it right in front of the world and it won't be hard.

Now let's put things in perspective. If Tucker Carlson is wrong about white supremacy you know at least the hoopla about it being a hoax then it would also be true that the numbers are big or climbing. So they're either big already or they're climbing. Because remember Islamic terrorists in this country is very small but we worried that it could you know climb or that the rate would increase. So let me give you some numbers which you don't see in most of these Periscopes or you don't see in the news.

All right, so how many people were killed by extremists? So according to the ADL, the same source that Brian Stelter was using, 387 people have been killed in the last decade. So in ten years 387 people were killed by extremists. All of those extremists in the United States, of those 71 percent were right-wing. So that's 275 over ten years. Let's round it off to 28 people per year. So isn't a national story that there's something that you could put a name on that's killing 28 people a year? Well let's see how big related numbers are so we can see if that's a big number or a small number.

All right, so right-wing extremists according to the ADL kill about 28 people per year over the past ten years total. Gun deaths in the United States per year are 40,000. We've got this and of course opioids are like 70,000 a year I think. Automobiles are 35,000 a year or something like that. So just 28 people. But remember if that number is climbing quickly then we should worry about it because the range of change, this is important, is where it starts. How many homicides per year? Because these are total gun deaths. How many of the gun deaths are not suicides or accidents? Turns out that there are about 12,000. So 12,000 murders with gun weapons compared to 28 done by extremists. So 28 is what percentage of the total gun deaths in the United States per year? It's 0.0017 of all the gun deaths. Point zero zero one seven of all the gun deaths.

Two-thirds of all gun homicides have black victims. Two-thirds. So that's around 8,000 murders per year of black people by both white and black people. But I think black people kill more of black people just because that's who's around. Obviously you're going to kill more of the type of people who are near you than people who live distantly. And so it's a tiny, tiny number. And so the real question is if we all agree it's a small number then what matters is how quickly is it growing? Do you know who has the statistics, the good statistics of how quickly the white supremacy murder rate is growing? Nobody. It doesn't exist. Yeah, if you look for that source you'll find lots of people saying wow it's hard to count because people counted differently and there were new agencies that came online recently that started counting. So you can't really look at the current numbers and compare them directly to the past because they're counting differently now. So basically we don't really know.

So it's a tiny number. We don't know if it's going up or not. But the most visible sign of it is this El Paso thing which if you actually read his manifesto you would say does it look like white supremacy to me? And that's it. That's the whole argument. So given all that who's right? Oh well let me give you some more numbers. 85% of... well two-thirds of gun deaths are suicide. Two-thirds of gun deaths are suicide and 85% of the gun suicides are male. What would you say is the big problem when 85% of gun deaths are suicide? Wouldn't it be more useful to speak of these mass shootings as fancy suicides? Am I wrong?

If you came from outer space and you didn't care about politics and you were just examining the planet with complete unbiased dispassionate logic, you're just looking at it and you said to yourself okay it looks like there's a massive problem with guns and suicide which is really a problem with suicide. They're just using guns. So if you have this massive suicide problem and this suicide comes in many forms, one of these forms is people like to dress up their suicide as having some meaning so that they can find meaning for the first time in their life. And so their warped minds come up with some political justification. If you happen to be a hypnotist or you study persuasion as I do you know that the human mind does not operate on reasons. I'll tell you what did not happen in any of these shootings. Here's what we know scientifically and historically and commonsensically. We know with complete certainty what did not happen with any of these shootings. What did not happen is that a reasonable person looked at the facts or the logic and then decided to kill a bunch of people. That never happened.

What did happen, because it's the only way that brains work — brains don't have two ways of working in the sense that I'm talking about here, they have one way of working. First they decide what they're going to do and then they work backwards to the reasons always. Now sometimes if you think that sometimes happens then you don't understand your reality in any useful way. Science has determined with complete conclusiveness that we decide first on the big stuff like this. The big emotional stuff. And a mass murder is the biggest emotional thing you can imagine. It's more emotional content than anything else because it's death and there's lots of it, etc. So these murders I can tell you with absolute confidence, 0% chance of being wrong, that they make the decision first and then they go through some tortured logic to describe why they did it. And that's why when you read the manifesto it looks like somebody with tortured logic. It looks like somebody who is desperately trying to come up with a reason for the thing they had already decided to do.

Now my take on it is that you have a suicide problem. Some of the people who kill themselves want to do it in a certain way that gives them meaning and ties into who they think they are, etc. But mostly it's just a suicide problem. You have to deal with all elements of it. But to call it a white supremacy problem I think misses the mark by as far as you can miss it. So I'm going to score this argument in favor of Tucker, meaning that when he says there's a white supremacy hoax I don't know that there are no white supremacists willing to kill people. I do know I've never seen one and I don't think I'll see one on television and I don't think I'll see a picture of one and I don't think I'll see a video of one and I don't think I'll see maybe even a manifesto from one. Because even this El Paso's manifesto wasn't about white supremacy. It was just about numbers and math and economics. So there you go.

All right, let's talk about something a little more uplifting. Maybe, maybe, maybe a lot more uplifting that I saw. One of the smartest, most insightful quotes you'll ever see and it came from actor Danny Trejo. Now if you're into movies and TV you might know this name. So Danny Trejo is Hispanic I assume. I think he's Hispanic. I'm not going to guess but I'm just guessing they use Hispanic. His last name gives it away anyway. He, which is only important because the times we're in, right? It's not important in any other way. It's only important because of our political climate.

So apparently he was driving along and he saw an accident in which there was a car flipped over. There was a baby in a baby seat that was still in the car and he stopped immediately and tried to get the baby out. And with somebody else's help he got the baby out. Now of course because he was the celebrity there he gets all of the... it's pronounced Trejo, somebody's telling me. Dan