Scary Honesty For America
Subscribe Today!
Would you believe that honesty can be a scary concept? In this interesting conversation, Bill Stierle and Tom talk about the honest and different realities going on around our societies that may lead to something scary. They discuss what scary honesty means and why they believe America is surrounded by it—from prescription drugs to reasons why politicians are avoiding honesty in their campaigns. Know more about this concept as Bill and Tom share more details on why there is still partial truth on Donald Trump’s rants and how politicians are already over-tapping the elephant.
---
Watch the episode here
Bill, it’s great to be back for another discussion in our journey of Purchasing Truth.
Tom, it’s great to be here. I feel energized, even though you and I have rolled up our sleeves to figure out how to best message truth and to talk about truth in a straight way, to recognize there are good reasons why people don’t use truth or their proportion of truth for their own behalf. People do that too. A big part of what we’re going to talk about is truth from a place of scary honesty. Scary honesty is an important term to use because it’s saying, “I am struggling with a topic but I don’t want to talk about it. I’m going to distract. I’m going to load the environment up with messages that I want the person to hear so I don’t have to talk about the truth.”
That’s a very common technique used in the political realm. For a lot of people, they’d probably do it without realizing they’re doing it in their own lives.
If I’m out at a party and somebody hits a nerve or something like that, it’s better to distract and get away from that thing that they’ve just mentioned rather than say, “My marriage isn’t going so well. I’m worried, my kid is sick at home and it’s hard for me to be here at this party.” There are a couple of different things. People don’t like to talk about uncomfortable things. It’s better to label it and put it in a box to distract and go in different direction, to become defensive about it, whatever you’re talking about, to even blame, shame or judge somebody else about it instead of talking straight about the partial truth or even the propagandized narrative that has some truth but very limited truth to it.
Would you agree, Bill, that in order to move things forward and make progress as an individual or as in a local government, state government or as a country, we have to have a discussion? There has to be honesty in the conversation and speak in a way that is going to stay away from the labels in order to get something accomplished? Is that a path toward scary honesty? Is that what we want to understand?
It’s saying something painful and true and to face an issue and challenge now rather than put it off. It’s the scary honesty piece. A big problem with it brings bad news early. If I’m bringing bad news early and I’m doing scary honesty, then the truth gets to be talked about. It’s difficult to talk about things. It’s hard to say talk about climate change and say, “How do you transition a person’s behaviors, habits and beliefs from one type of energy source to a different type of energy source that benefits everyone?” How about that? Let’s do that. It’s not going to benefit some people that are currently entrenched in a certain way that energy is being produced. It’s not going to benefit them. The oil riggers are not going to like this. How about having an effort to recapture carbon and to upgrade our prevention? There were some great statistics about things, especially in the Los Angeles basin that you and I live in. We used to have many unhealthy days.
Growing up in the ‘80s and high school here, there were so many days where in high school you couldn’t go outside for recess because the air quality was so bad. When you would drive in the valleys, you could see the thick smog. That doesn’t happen anymore here in 2019. I don’t recall maybe one day in a year that is very unhealthy. A large part of that is because things have changed. Cars are more fuel-efficient than they were. The regulations were changed and we had to change that. It’s not that a lot more doesn’t need to be done in the grand scheme of the global climate, but you can definitely see how things have improved in it. I don’t think it’s just the automobiles. There are many other things here.
The catalytic converter was one of the big pieces to get rid of this stuff before it came out. That was a big effort. The gas mileage also helped out. The efficiency of burning that helped out. I’m from Florida so when I would go home to Florida, whenever I’m driving down from West Palm Beach down to Miami, I can see the yellow smog there in the air. They don’t have the same regulations but because they don’t have any mountains to hold it in and get people to choke on it, it goes away and it was out to the ocean in the upper atmosphere. I don’t see it as a problem. It’s not affecting me. There’s no way to talk about it honestly because the person isn’t impacted or suffering. The elephant brain, the emotional brain, and the habit brain don’t want to change it or believe it to be true. It’s not critical. It’s not crisis. It’s not hard.
I’ll give you a good example that you’ve brought into my consciousness. In the early and mid-‘90s, I lived in Western Michigan for a few years. My first daughter was born there. I remember at that time, having grown up in completely different parts of the country but I moved there for business reasons. I was surprised when I arrived there. There was no motor vehicle emissions inspection or any inspection for motor vehicles in Michigan. While I was there, the state legislature passed one and everybody’s cars were going to need to be inspected. You can imagine, in general, for a state that had never had such a thing before by the general public and by political opponents to the whole thing was seen as unnecessary and burdensome on the people. It’s another tax. It’s an inconvenience. “Do you mean we have to drive our cars somewhere once a year, get inspected, get a sticker and you’re going to give me a ticket if I don’t do it?”
This was a foreign concept to Michigan, but because of the air quality situation, more of the state legislators thought, “This is a good idea. We need to do this and it will also generate some state revenue and that’s a good thing.” They passed it, and then the state has changed. Another governor came in who didn’t like it and killed the project after it was already passed. The inspection stations had been built. We’re talking about a lot of money wasted. Here was the reason why and you made me think of it when you’re talking about in Florida the smog blowing away. The reason, the justification, which to me was completely devoid of scary honesty, was that all the pollution in Michigan was coming from Illinois and was blowing across Lake Michigan over to Michigan. Therefore, it’s not our problem that our air quality is bad. We shouldn’t be burdened with fixing it.
I’m like, “Are you kidding me? Let’s not make the problem better. Let’s not deal with the reality that our air quality is not good regardless of where it’s coming from.” This is like a global cyclical problem and everybody’s win pretty much comes from the West and moves toward the East. Nobody is free from this. I even remember the Fukushima plant in Japan, that whole thing and the earthquake. It was a result of an earthquake in Japan and the result of that tsunami was so much trash and debris ended up in the Pacific Ocean. Where did it end up? Do you remember? It ended up on the shores of Seattle, Oregon and California about nine months later. People may not want to deal with the reality. They may not want to deal with the scary honesty that we have some challenges, but how can we help people accept this, deal with it, and talk about it in a productive way?
Politicians generally try to avoid honesty when they're running because it is not helping the dopamine in the brain of the potential voters.
CLICK TO TWEET
The productive way is this is not going to be one from a logical point of view. The front part of the brain as I hold my hand on my forehead is if I’m looking at the upper left part metaphorically speaking where the logical part is. The upper right where the creative part is. This part of the brain thinks it can run the emotional part. The lower right of the brain where the habit part, it can change its habits, it thinks it can. They’ll even say it, every New Year. “My New Year’s resolution is to lose ten pounds in January.” As if that hasn’t been said a couple of hundred thousand maybe even a million times to anyone that is a little heavier than they would like.
They say it, it is December 31st, they are celebrating New Year and they’ll go like, “This month I’m going to get it done.” They walk through the kitchen of this party and before they know it, the cookie is in their mouth and they’re eating it. That means the elephant part of the brain, the emotional and the habit part of the brain, starts eating the cookie. The rational brain justifies it and puts it off.
“I’ll start tomorrow.” No, you won’t. Tomorrow will be another moment where you put something in your mouth and you rationalize the good reason why I felt hungry. I was uncomfortable. This is only a little thing. The habit brain and the emotional brain, does not want to face the possibility of losing choice, the possibility of feeling uncomfortable. It doesn’t.
The possibility of losing choice landed very powerfully on me when you said that. I’m thinking back to The Matrix where choice is the thing that I remember, the thing that makes humans human.
We need to have access to choice. The only challenge with choices is it’s usually not in the best interest of everyone. It’s in the best interest for me and it’s the best interest now. It’s the best interest of what my child-mind would like right now. That’s difficult. It depends what part of your child-mind is still in place. Is it your four-year-old child-mind that wasn’t allowed to have any sweets and now you’re going to eat whatever you want? Is it the seven-year-old child’s brain who’s experienced the parent’s divorce and didn’t have the choice of connection and now having a difficult time with connection? Is that the child’s brain running the show? Is that the fourteen-year-old child’s brain that had difficulty with fairness with the older brother? Now it’s thinking it wasn’t fair back then. It’s not fair right now. I’m going to take whatever I want. Is that the child brain that’s running the show? Is that the one that’s making the choice? Isn’t this a weird discussion about how honesty and choice are formulated?
It is. Even within your own brain. It’s quite something. That’s an interesting way to understand that at one level like the child that’s like, “We’re at this party and they’re serving dinner but they also have all these desserts right there. I want that cookie first.” I had this happened. We were at a party for our grand opening of the new doctor’s office of someone that we know personally. There were the cookies right there and my daughter is like, “Forget this dinner foodstuff. I want the cookie. Can I have a cookie?” We’re like, “Yes, after you eat some dinner.” There was disappointment at first but then it ended up becoming motivation, “I’m going to eat that dinner as fast as I can so I can get that cookie.”
That nutrition didn’t minimalize as quickly as possible.
That was a five-year-old brain.
That’s the way it is.
Let’s drive this to a more difficult topic that adults would face a lot of the time. What about the reality of a major program that adults depend on or maybe they are more cynical and aren’t going to depend on it or counts on it of Social Security?
The low-cost insurance that we provide elderly adults in order to have something at the end. Notice how I framed that. There’s not the word “entitlement.”
I was going to say, I don’t think I hear too many politicians positioning it that way.
It’s a low-cost insurance that people pay into so that at least a group of people are not broke when they can’t work. They can’t work because they’re too old to work. It’s a low-cost insurance.
Can you imagine if anybody who was in favor of whatever it may be at the time, shoring up Social Security or whatever changes are needed to make sure it’s still going to be there for the aging Baby Boom population.
No one will ever push back at it. It’s a low-cost insurance so that we don’t have a bunch of old people that can’t work dying. We give them some form of respect and some form of life sustenance in the end rather than they can’t work, therefore they’re going to starve and they’re going to die.
I was going to say lifeline.
It’s a lifeline that they’re paying for. It’s not that much and it is very hard to live on it.
It’s not a whole a lot. I agree. What would be the scary honesty if the reality is, “There are too many people collecting and there’s not enough money going into it.” What would be the scary honesty conversation that would need to happen or potentially?
The scary honesty conversation would be a numbers discussion. We know that we don’t want this thing to take place. We know we don’t want the thing to bankrupt and run out of money. What are some things we can do with the census numbers? We accurately record the census numbers so that we have the numbers that we need in order for us as a government to provide a safety net for people who get old and can’t work. We have something minimally for most of the people that are at the bottom of the food chain that didn’t have the job or the sustenance.
They didn’t have a 401(k). They were more of an hourly worker or a direct labor and not in the union.
That’s where those people were. That’s where they lived in. There’s a whole bunch of those people. First-generation immigrants are in that spot. They’re not coming for the measly amount of money at the end of their life, they’re coming for safety. The rule of law that there’s a general sense of protection that the military is separated from the police. Most countries, there’s not enough people and the military and the police are more together. Our country has those two concepts separate.
Civil versus military.
This one is protect and serve. This one is protect from foreign aggression. They’re very separate. When you say an answer to a problem or express a plan, what happens is usually a person will give an emotional response to the plan. “I don’t agree with the plan.” In order to do scary honesty, you need to actually clear the emotion on their side when you’re trying to talk about something honestly. You’re feeling frustrated and doubtful and you don’t think it’s fair that we collectively pay for people so that at least they have some little bit of money, so they have respect and dignity at the end. You don’t like that all of us are paying something just so that we don’t have more homeless people walking around with no shelter and living in that way, the way many third world countries. You’d rather have the third world model or the second world model. Is that what you’d like to have, instead of the first world model? The first world model has systems and structures in place. Would you rather have the second world model where there are more strong men, dictators, oligarchs? Would you rather have that model where they get to do whatever they want and rip off and suppress everybody else? Is that what you’d like?
There will be a quick changing of the subject by whoever you were talking to right there. You’ve boxed them into having to agree with you unless they completely distract, right?
That’s right. They’d have to distract. At which time, you bring empathy and compassion to the distraction. They’re going to sit on a belief bias and they’re going to give you pushback and even time to time violence if you stay after them. If you keep insisting that the person’s belief is wrong, that’s problematic. If you stay with the person’s belief long enough, they will melt their own belief. They’ll melt it if you can give enough compassion and empathy towards the belief. That’s why scary honesty is something that needs to be backed up with empathy in order to support it. You can’t stay with, “Here’s what the scary honesty and the results are going to be,” because we have been there and done this before. We have been there and done trickle down the economy. We’ve been there and done that.
Kansas did that, it crushed their economy, wiped it out because they said, “We’re going to do trickle down. We’re not going to tax the way we were. We’re going to give this thing. We’re going to apply these principles that we believe in. If we allow people to keep their money and the rich people to do this and the middle class.” In Louisiana, they did the same thing. It wrecked their economy. They went from a positive to a negative very quickly. We’ve been there and done that. Scary honesty would be saying, “It was an interesting idea. There are people that believe that from the fairness place that if there’s a certain amount of money that’s available, that fairness is everybody gets to keep whatever they want and everybody gets to do what they want.” It’s like putting a four-year-old or a five-year-old in charge of the cookie plate. It’s like, “No, they eat the cookies. We don’t want them in charge of the cookie plate.” That’s one of the problems in regards to scary honesty. If you’re not honest about who’s in charge of the cookie plate, then how are we going to get these cookies to move around so somebody has something about something instead of everybody having wine and all the rest of the people don’t have any? That doesn’t work good. That’s not how we got here.
That’s the other part of the scary honesty when it comes to the whole immigration thing that I don’t think people remember. First of all, there’s the whole economic reality that our economy is based on growth. If you don’t have growth, the economy is bad. Growth involves an increasing number of consumers in the United States of America. An increasing number of people to buy things and to live. One of the ways you get that is by having more children. The other way is by immigrants which we have had from the beginning of time in this country. There have always been immigrants. It’s a hot button issue. There’s got to be a lot of scary honesty within that.
I appreciate this discussion because with the immigrant population, we need more people because the birth rate is down. It’s not the same birth rate during the Baby Boom. A big part of that birth rate is we were building the middle class by taxing the rich at 70%, 80%, 90%. We built the middle class. The middle class had things to feel stable enough to have children. When you put animals under pressure, they do not reproduce very well and in great numbers because we are animals. Isn’t that a scary honesty sentence? I think we are. If you put a group of animals under stress and you take away the resources like shelter, affordable housing, food and the ability to have stability. They know where their next paycheck is coming from for weeks, months and even years. Do we have that in the United States right now? No. People are moving from job to job. They’re not staying in one place. They can’t stay. They have to move because the loyalty is down, because there’s no incentive. It’s difficult.
The reality is unemployment is down. The economy is decidedly good. It’s been good for years. Coming out of 2008, 2009 where we were in a ditch. It’s been coming up and it’s continued to go well. That’s why you don’t hear as much discussion in Washington about the “entitlements” using not the productive language because Social Security has a lot of people paying into it. Unemployment is down and it’s not our biggest pain point as a country right now. It’s certainly not getting the visibility but immigration is getting all the visibility because of the current administration that got into office on the promise of building a wall. That’s a little scary honesty there. Is the wall going to stop people from trying to come into this country? I don’t think so.
60% of the immigrants fly in. 60% of illegal immigrants come in legally and then don’t leave. That’s problematic. They overstay their visas. There’s an enforcement piece there that’s important. At the same time, we make it impossible years and years of those people jumping through the hoops and all the things in it. We don’t make it easy because it’s uncomfortable to have a conversation from a person that’s from another country. We’ve done such an awful/great job of scaring the crap out of people about somebody that is foreign because foreign is different and different is bad. We don’t encourage people to see what another person is on the other side of the world or to be able to empathize or do anything for them. We’re so busy scaring people. Scary honesty is they keep the military going. That’s the scary honesty. If you scare people enough, they won’t question the funding on military. We’re all over the place here with scary honesty, aren’t we?
You can go in so many different ways with it. Another one that comes to mind is when a candidate Trump announced in his presidency. He talks about people from Mexico bringing drugs. That’s one of the major things. They’re bringing drugs. That’s the problem and that’s why you need the wall. We need better border security. In reality, we probably have a bigger drug problem in this country right now with prescription drugs. The pharmaceutical companies that are making it ED and the system of doctors that they incentivize to prescribe them. That has created a much bigger drug problem in this country. Maybe it’s starting to happen but it even needs to be more scary honesty about that.
I appreciate that. There’s one film clip I saw where there are all these people about twelve people or fifteen people sitting in a circle at a rehab center. They were all in for heroin. Let the word heroin sit in your brain a little bit. You and I have been taught heroin is bad. It’s illegal. The question that the therapist asks, “How many of you started your drug use from a pharmaceutical?” All of them raised their hands. They all started with a pharmaceutical. That was the gateway drug. It was the pharmaceutical.
It’s a legal prescription.
Why are you not using that drug now? It’s because heroin is cheaper. It’s easier to get than the prescription drug is. Who’s doing what here? This is complex. The scary honesty is that many police departments get a good portion of their funding by the money they confiscate, from the cars and houses that they confiscate from the drug users.
I didn’t know that. They actually consume that.
There’s a funding source. If you get rid of the war on drugs and you make it legal, how are you going to fund those people? Those people are going to lose their jobs. Who’s going to pay for that? The government? No, they’re spending money on the war on drugs.
They’re part of the thing. I’m not even trying to talk about solutions here yet. I’m trying to talk about three words: perspective, perception and proportion. When we talk about purchasing truth and we talk about scary honesty, those three levers are pulled.
We’re going to pull on the perspective, we’re going to adjust the perception and then we are going to either escalate or deescalate the proportion.
As you say that, I’m wondering, we are so much a political nation and there are so many people announcing running for president again. Do the politicians who are running and trying to get into the office or even the ones that are in the office and trying to stay there, still avoid scary honesty more than not? The reason I’m asking is that you mentioned perspective, perception and proportion and that all make sense. Politicians generally try to avoid honesty as scary honesty when they’re running because scary honesty isn’t helping the dopamine in the brain of the potential voters, is it?
No. The thing is that the scary honesty is that there’s a small partial truth to what Donald Trump rant on. There is a partial truth.
Let’s talk about that. What is that partial truth?
Now I’m adjusting the perception, perspective and proportion. Some people don’t like the way Ted Cruz lies. He lies and he becomes Lying Ted. There’s the perception and there’s the perspective. Now the proportion is all I’ve got to do is say in half a dozen times and he loses percentage points and I gained his points.
While that was a partial truth, it gets amplified into this big perception?
Yes, and he gets branded as that. Is Hillary crooked? I don’t know about that. Has she done things that have been marginal in her life? Yes. Every other human being has done things that are marginal in their life. Yes, as she’d been in the world of politics where she’s had to make a deal that was against her ethics. Is there a stick that you can poke at her behavior, her husband’s behavior, them as people? Yes. As human beings, they’ve got some flaws.
Who doesn’t have flaws?
You’re pointing the finger at their flaws. Yes, because they were a target. You get to do that, feel free at the same time, there’s no proportion to it. There’s no perspective to it because all you got to do is slap on crooked Hillary. She’s now got to get that chain label off of her neck somehow because it’s branded in people’s brains. That the problem.
It seems like a whole lot of scary and not as much honesty.
The scary honesty is that many police departments get a good portion of their funding by the money they confiscate.
CLICK TO TWEET
Thank you for that. That’s right. That’s the thing. We could talk further on perspective, perception and proportion as the three levers that people pull to purchase truth. What winds up happening is that as these levers are being pulled, it’s the same as the wizard of Oz. It’s the dog in Wizard of Oz which pulls the curtain back and here’s this regular guy pulling these three levers of the scary person on the screen. Meanwhile Dorothy, the scarecrow, the tin man and the lion are looking at this guy pulling these levers. They’re going, “Are you that guy?” The brilliant thing he did is he said, “You had these things all along. You just needed to be scared into believing that you did. You needed to fight the foe. You had these things.” It’s the same thing but that same scene can be done in the negative.
It’s the same scene that’s being done on the political environment. Pull the levers and scare the crap out of people, adjust their perception, perspective and proportion of the danger. Call something a caravan or it’s a couple of thousand people or their abouts. Amplify a story, scare the crap out of people about different places.
That is so illuminating right there. What’s also coming into my mind and maybe I would imagine a lot of our readers as well is that earlier in this episode when we talked about Social Security, you jumped in with language that was honest about what it is intended to be, what it was meant to be. It’s not what the talking point is that demonizes it and makes it seem like it’s a handout. It’s somehow cast in a negative light. The reason that I want to mention that again, is when we’re looking at any candidate who’s going to be effective at trying to keep Trump from continuing to purchase truth as he seeks re-election. The language that they use is critical in how they talk about things. They have the ability to take away Trump or prevent Trump from labeling them if they know what to say, if they think about it properly and they don’t react with that elephant brain maybe, is it?
That’s right. They’ve got to diffuse the branding messages that are coming because those branding messages are adjusting the perspective, the perception and the proportion. Even with The Mueller Report that showed up, it started out as a big mountain but it’s a mouse. That is a proportional adjustment to truth. Do you see what happened? Anybody that’s already believing him is going like, “It started as a mountain and it turned out to be a mouse.”
Now they’re going to compartmentalize The Mueller Report, stick it in a very small box over and say, “It really is nothing.”
It’s really not that big. There were some things there but they were only the size of a mouse. The things he found were only the size of the mouse, the things that were destroyed and the things that the people talk to them about, that they were stonewalled about it, which is in the report, documents were destroyed. Things were eliminated. There are so many people that didn’t talk to us. We didn’t get the transparency we wanted. That’s all in there. To be honest with you, I would have liked complete exoneration. I would have liked that because it would be like they amplified this on the other side with their perception, proportion and perspective.
By doing that, you can create all kinds of problems in government by adjusting the perception, perspective and proportion of people. This is something that clearly we can move out and coming back to the theme of scary honesty and coming back about how to frame something that is more in alignment with truth rather than it. The key thing is to make the truth stick with a message that is compelling and easy to understand. It matters to the listener. I’m giving the answer to how to adjust and purchase truth back. I want to purchase it back with my work.
Purchase it back and also take the money out of the opponent’s wallet so they can’t steal it as easily. I’m using a metaphor here. It seems to me that I can hear it in language that you use even before there was an argument. “We can’t keep carrying all these people who haven’t saved over the course of their careers and planned for their retirement. We have to keep shoring up this entitlement,” where you said, “No, they’ve been paying into this insurance program their whole careers and just to get a little something to keep them from being out on the street.” You said it more eloquently than I did and the reality is anything that candidate Trump will say, if met with empathy, honesty, compassion can be diffused. At the same time, you’re right, they need to purchase their own truth.
Instead of sticking a label and diagnosis and then trying to adjust the proportion of it from a mountain to a mouse is a great proportional lever to pull. It’s adjusting and aligning the perception and the perspective of people. What they’re not getting is how exhausted we all are with his behavior and his people’s behavior. There are a bunch of people that are exhausted and moving into the place. They’ve over-tapped the elephant brain of the other side and they don’t know it. The midterm elections showed that but because they keep going back and keep trying to stay on course with it, it’s engendering a certain group of people but there’s not enough of them. The herd is coming. When the messaging is correctly put in the mouths of the leaders that are communicating that way, when the correct vocabulary and message sentences are put in their things. I’ve written about two dozen of these sentences that they could use to gain momentum.
I’d like to put you on the spot and say, Bill, if you’re on a panel with somebody who is speaking that talking point, say about The Mueller Report and they’re saying, “This whole thing started as a mountain and it ended up a mouse and we should put it away, forget about it, move on and get some real things done in this country.” What would you say to battle that label?
At first, I’d empathize with it. You feel doubtful and skeptical that the things in the report have risen to the levels of looking out any further. You would like to bring it closure rather than find out the rest of the missing information. Is that what you would like? They would say yes. If there were some incongruencies, you don’t think that it’s worth spending any time to figure these incongruencies out. Where are these missing pieces of information, is that what you’re thinking? You would like to stop truth now and not look any more towards truth.
They would probably say, “It’s a waste of time. We’ve spent too much money on it.”
You would like to save some money and the money for truth is not valuable for you right now at this moment. Where many Americans think the money is valuable. You don’t think it’s valuable for truth.
They’d be starting to get uncomfortable in what they’d say. I’m not sure what they’d say.
At least on a scary honesty conversation, it was like, “If it was somebody that you didn’t like, would you like to spend money on finding out the good reasons why they didn’t do something?” Would you give them a pass too and say, “They were a human being.
They made some mistakes and it’s okay because these mistakes weren’t all that big?” We’re going to allow the current behavior that was in the report to continue. Is that okay to allow the behavior that was in the report to continue? Is that okay to do?
The further you dig into and make them answer questions on the details of the report, they’re not in a good place.
The hard part about this discussion is that the time is very limited. It is certainly crackling right now inside the listener. What happens is inside the listener that’s listening to is going, “He’s not backing away. He’s walking into the fire. He’s listening and compassionate to my guy and my guy is flailing.” Once they start to flail on their side and get flustered and stuff like that, then they become inauthentic. They don’t become truthful and I purchased truth back through language.
The first thing they’ll try to do is distract and probably attack the people that required the whole Mueller probe in the first place. A popular talking point is to attack the investigators.
You would like the investigators to not have an opinion and you would have liked the investigators to not have a point of view.
They would like the investigators to be investigated for why they investigate in the first place.
That’s where you think the truth is. You think the truth is that the investigators were not in alignment with even starting this thing because what we’ve discovered by them starting these things is all of these indictments and all these people in jail, but you don’t want us to focus on that. You want us to focus on the people that started it because it’s uncomfortable for you to talk about. You want it to be more comfortable to talk about. You want to try to land to talking point. I’m being a little snarky right now. I wouldn’t say that some of those things but I would be honest about, “I see your point of view and I can see how you’re going for trying to get truth to look a certain way but I don’t think the perception and the perspective is proportional to the way you’re languaging this. I’m not sure if it’s valuable to America for us to talk this way. I would like us to go back to the thing called the rule of law. Don’t we want to do that or do we not want to do that anymore?”
You have the whole above the law discussion and that can’t go the way they want it to.
No, they do not want to have that discussion of a thing called above the law because a part of them wants choice at the expense of others. Now we’re back to choice again, Tom. It’s such an important discussion about truth and how truth can be purchased. You don’t need money but you sure need language. You don’t need as much money if you have the right language. We can rest on that one.
Wouldn’t that be wonderful if you couldn’t buy an election by having more money? That would be nice.
Some of the candidates prove that.
We haven’t always had a skillful enough candidate who speaks that way. That doesn’t need more money to keep tapping the elephant brain to think something. They can use that language. They can be more effective.
The herd is coming when the messaging is correctly put in the mouths of the leaders that are communicating with the correct vocabulary.
CLICK TO TWEET
Every time they open their mouths, they can purchase truth with every sentence.
Let’s end it there. There’s something to think about until next time. I love it.
Tom, I am so delighted to do this with you. It’s fun. Our commitment to getting up early in the morning to do this is a way that I feel grateful that you’re on this journey with me and we’ll keep going.
We’ve got to make the time. It’s too much fun and too important. Thank you so much, Bill.
Thank you, Tom. I appreciate it.
