Episode 1791 Scott Adams: How To Gaslight Yourself Using The Democrat Method
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Gaslight reminders from Democrats
The "liberal world order"?
The thing, and the opposite of the thing
J6 Committee and a shrinking GOP election advantage
J6 Committee persuasion, Gerry Spence style
Frida Ghitis and the endorsement ploy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to The Highlight of Civilization.
One correction and or clarification.
A lot of people think that when I turn this on, I'm saying bum bum bum, as in B-U-M. No, no.
It's P-U-M. Bum bum bum.
Bum bum bum. You have to get it right, otherwise the whole thing goes downhill.
It's a slippery slope to not talking at all.
And if you'd like to take today's experience up, and that's what it is, it's an experience.
It's not a show. It's like Joe Rogan had it right.
It's an experience. And your experience might include grabbing a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice this night, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes your oxytocin hum.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It's famous everywhere.
It's changing the world.
Go! Now, you don't have to drink just coffee.
Somebody on Locals says that they drink only freshly melted mountain snow.
To which I say, now that's something I aspire to.
Well, remember I had this great idea, according to me and nobody else, that one of the biggest trends in America...
Would be these little homes that are actually kind of awesome and you can build them in a factory.
They're part of the ADU movement, where you can put a little one for your in-laws in the backyard or whatever.
But I said that the real big gain is going to be not that you can put these in your backyard, because that's a limited market, but that they would design communities where there are only these little homes.
And then the whole community would be designed so, even though the inside of your home might not be palatial, the way the community is laid out is so well designed that you just love living there.
And have I ever told you that all of my ideas have two qualities?
I think Elon Musk said this recently too.
So my ideas have two qualities.
One, there's no way they will ever work.
That's the first quality. There's no way that idea is ever going to work.
The second quality is somebody's already doing it.
And so here it is again. So sure enough, in Atlanta, there's a place called, and this is not a joke, southparkcottages.com.
And go take a look at it.
I think it's what's going to happen.
And here's why. The cost of living in what I'd call a legacy house, a house that was built for the lifestyle of the 80s, just doesn't work.
It's like an insane amount of expense to maintain it and everything.
And it doesn't even have basic stuff that you need for today's lifestyle.
It's built around a television set.
Right? Modern houses, like the living room, is sort of built around watching TV, but people walk around with their headphones and their phones now are not sitting around the screen.
So the basic lifestyle has so changed since 1980, you have to start over.
And since you couldn't possibly afford a $2 million house that would have cost $200,000 not too long ago, you're going to end up...
Getting these tiny little homes but living in awesome communities and you actually will upgrade your experience.
You want to hear something that will really make you mad?
Suppose they're mostly rented.
Let's say people build a community and investors each get to own a little house that they rent.
So it's basically a way to invest.
If you did that...
The people who lived there would, and let's say they're even furnished, because I think they might even come furnished.
But if you did that and you were renting, you would own nothing and you would be happy.
What does that sound like?
It's that World Forum, New World Order thing, right?
Yeah, Klaus, what's his name?
He said in the future, you will own nothing and be happier.
Now, the way you interpreted that is we're all going to be communists, right?
You will own nothing and be happier.
You'll all be communists. Maybe.
Maybe that's exactly what he meant.
I don't know. But here's the other thing it could have meant.
It could have meant that personal ownership of property is impractical.
I own a house, and walking from my home office, where I am right now, to the kitchen...
Do you know how many distractions and unnecessary things I have to think of to walk from here to the kitchen?
That trip is filled with adventure every time.
And the adventure is there's something broken, leaking, or spilled every time I make that trip.
It's just right downstairs.
It's literally right below me.
I just go to the stairs and walk down.
And I can't even get there without a whole bunch of problems that are caused by...
What are all the problems caused by?
My ownership of the property.
It's my problem because I own it.
But if somebody else owned it, it would sort of be their problem.
So there are two trends that you should watch.
One is that everything's more complicated.
Have you tried to do anything lately?
Have you tried to do anything?
It's so complicated to do anything.
Here, let me give you an example. I had silenced an alert for somebody a while ago.
And I was trying to undo it.
Do you know how many ways you can silence an alert on your phone now?
So you try to just undo it, and you can't fucking figure it out.
There's like one way on the line.
You know, you can do it on the line where they show up in your thing.
You can change your focus on the iPhone.
There's like a focus thing that turns off your alarm sometimes.
There's also a way you can block them individually.
I think there's five ways.
Oh, but you can also turn off the physical alarm on the phone...
Oh, and I also have my phone set so that only people in my contacts call me.
So simply using my phone, it's just too hard.
The other day, I've reached a certain age, so now I have to look into this thing called Medicare.
Now, do you have any idea how complicated it is to sign up for Medicare?
And they make old people do it.
This is the worst thing I've ever seen.
And I had to actually hire somebody, I paid somebody, to go figure it out for me, because I couldn't.
Let me say it again.
I have two college degrees, and I don't think that I'm slowing down that much, you know, with age.
Two college degrees.
I couldn't even come close to penetrating how you sign up for Medicare, or even what it was.
I actually couldn't even barely figure out what it was, or why you need it, or who gets it.
You know, is the income limited?
Is there some kind of, you know, window?
Does it save you money?
Does it give you worse or better coverage?
I didn't know any of that.
And so I actually had my bookkeeper, who is awesome and does lots of things for me.
Help me figure it out.
And so she came back with a lot of details.
And just to sign up for it, there's like, it's taken me days to collect all the things.
Here are the things that I need.
I need, for example, information from my first marriage, like the beginning and end dates of my first marriage, like not even my current one.
Beginning and end dates of my employment, which is complicated because at one point I set up a corporate account, but it was really the same job.
How do you handle that? Because it's really two entities, but the same job.
And so I've been working on this for days.
I'm searching through records and finding things.
And so far, all I've gotten to is collecting the information.
I haven't even got to the point where I have to go online and try to fill it out.
Now imagine that everything's like that.
This is the stuff that has to get fixed.
Let me describe to you a future city and see if you'd want to live there.
It's a future city.
It doesn't exist. The government has one job besides defense.
So it's going to be your physical security and your police, but it has basically one job.
It's an insurance company.
It's the only one. So you'd get everything from your car insurance to your life insurance to even your appliance insurance.
You would insure even your appliances in your home with the government.
And the government would not tax you.
No taxes. You would just pay for insurance.
But you'd only pay once and you'd never have to shop because everybody would get the same insurance because it'd be awesome.
There'd be nothing missing. You would never have to look at your insurance You'd never have to figure it out.
You'd never have to do it yourself.
But you would also never be not covered.
Here's another thing. Have you ever tried to form a partnership or a corporation because you have a small business?
It's really, really complicated and unnecessary.
In the city of the future, everybody will have the same protection as any corporation.
Do you know why? Because there's no reason not to.
There never was. There's no reason that somebody who hired a lawyer and then turns himself into, like, an LLC, a limited liability corporation, or a corporation, S-Corp, there's no reason that they should be protected, and the person who didn't have the lawyer to do that is not.
Just make the law that says everybody has that same protection.
That's it. You can get rid of lawyers.
You can just have standard contracts.
Just get rid of lawyers.
Every contract's the same. Right?
So you can imagine starting from scratch and just say, what if we got rid of all the complication of everything?
You know, all insurance and laws and all that stuff.
You could do it. And home ownership is insanely complicated.
Now, you might like it, and you would still have that option.
But if I could get rid of all of the complications of ownership of property and my car, do you know how many problems I have with my car right now?
I think I have three different alerts, but getting it to the dealer, getting the right time, getting a ride back, because Uber doesn't work here anymore, organizing it with somebody else's schedule, and then there's going to be parts.
Like, everything. Every single thing I own is a project.
I have almost no time to work.
Because I'm just taking care of my broken shit all the time.
And I don't... It's not like I own that much.
Like, I got one house, one car.
But it's all broken all the time.
I just had to take my...
I thought I was all happy getting an e-bike until that started breaking.
Anyway. Simplification.
In today's comic...
Well, this week, Dilbert's company decided to go into the business of making voting machines.
How do you think that's going so far?
I wondered if I would get cancelled for this.
So the setup is that Dilbert's company decides to get into the business of making voting machines.
Now, of course, you're all going to read into it that I'm really making fun of an existing company.
But I'm not. I mean, I don't need to.
I'm simply showing what Dilbert's company would do if they were in that business.
So if you read into it anything else, that would be on you.
But let me tell you what today's comic was, just so you know what kind of trouble I'm getting into.
The boss is describing to his team.
He says, Elbonian hackers got into our voting machine software.
They deleted our secret backdoor access for rigging elections and fixed several critical security bugs.
And then the boss yells, our homeland is under attack.
And Dilber looks at him and says, which side am I on?
So that was the setup.
Now, people are wondering if I will get cancelled for this.
Kind of wondering myself.
Kind of wondering myself.
Yeah, have you noticed how close I skate to cancellation?
Now, I maintain that it's actually easy to not get cancelled.
I could prove myself wrong, but I maintain that it's very obvious what is over the line.
And therefore you can walk right up to it because it's so obvious what it would take to go over it.
You just don't do that.
Like, it doesn't happen on its own.
You have to actually write something that's pretty bad.
And I just don't do that.
So I feel like I'm frustrating the people who must be looking at me to try to cancel me at this point.
Don't you believe that there's a constituency, if you would call it that, of people who are really, really looking at me hard and saying, oh, you are so close.
We are locked and loaded.
If you go one more step, one more step, we gotcha.
But I don't. So far.
I probably will.
I mean, if I had to bet on it, I'd bet against myself, I think.
But here are your gaslight reminders.
This is courtesy of the Democrats.
These are three things that you need to remind yourself, because if you didn't remind yourself of these on a regular basis, you would fall out of the gaslighting, let's say, zone.
So if you want to stay gaslit and keep up with everybody else, because that's the state of the country, there are three things that you must accept.
Number one... You can conquer a superpower with bear spray and clubs.
You have to hold that as true.
Number two, you can know something doesn't exist by not looking for it.
You must hold that as true in order to stay in your gaslight zone here.
And then the most important one, every government system in the United States is corrupt and non-credible except...
Except for all 50 individual and different state voting systems.
Those are A+. Now, those three things you have to keep in your head as true, or else nothing else you see makes sense.
Because they're sort of the tent poles of the gaslight operation.
So if you don't accept those three tent poles, which are, frankly, ridiculous, you can't be part of the gaslight operation.
Speaking of gaslighting, so there was a Biden aide on CNN who was asked, what do you say to those families who say, listen, we can't afford to pay $4.85 a gallon for gas for months, if not years.
We can't afford that. What do you say to them?
And the Biden advisor said, and his name is Brian Deese, Deese, D-E-E-S-E, as in Deese Nuts, These nuts, yeah.
So that's where it came from, that saying.
When people say, how about these?
And you say, these nuts?
That was from Brian, actually.
No, it's not true. It's not from him.
Anyway, Brian Deese responded to that question by saying, quote, this is about the future of the liberal world order, and we have to stand firm.
Wait, what? Wait, wait, wait, what?
And I actually had to play it back again because I thought, well, no, he didn't actually say that, did he?
Now, apparently Biden has said that before.
I don't know how far back, but Biden's actually used the term.
Something called a liberal world order.
The LWO, I guess.
And so basically he was saying...
That this change toward a liberal-centric world with, I guess, climate change being addressed more aggressively, etc., that that's where we're going, and that's where we want to go, and that is more important than your family eating and buying gas.
And he says it directly.
He's basically saying...
You know, tough it out, people, because we've got bigger fish to fry.
We want to make things like we want them.
When I hear that, it sounds like somebody cares about winning more than they care about people.
Because why did you have to put liberal in the description of where it needs to be?
I feel like...
I feel like he described a team competition where he said, yeah, you know, some people are going to get hurt, but our team has to win.
Because when you say it's about the future of the liberal world order, that's not even a set of benefits that I even understand.
That sounds like it's about the New York Yankees winning the World Series.
Isn't that what it sounds like?
What are the reasons? Can you give me any meat about what are the good things that we will have?
Because you just mentioned the name of the team.
Mentioning the name of the team feels like you just see this as a competition, like a sport.
Like you're not even taking seriously that the people at CNN, to their credit, to their credit, and this is always worth mentioning because CNN is trying to transition to more straight news, But to their credit, they were asking a tough question, which is, what the hell are you going to do about gas prices?
Because there's no good answer. And their answer is, what's more important is that our team wins.
Basically, that's what I heard.
It's jaw-dropping, isn't it?
And a lot of people were doing the tweet.
They said the silent part out loud.
They really did.
This really is the silent part out loud.
That the team element here is the important part.
Well, Biden said he might support changing the senator's filibuster rule specifically for the Roe vs.
Wade stuff. And does that work?
Can somebody do a fact check on me?
I didn't have time to do it. Isn't that what Mitch McConnell did for getting justices through?
So don't we already have one exception to the filibuster?
Am I wrong on that?
Give me a fact check on that.
Oh, that was Harry Reid?
Harry Reid did that, okay.
But can you fact check the question, was that carved out as an exception to the filibuster rule?
It was, right? Based on specific legislation.
So here's the first question.
Would it be...
I mean, forget about whether you want it to happen.
Separate question. Do we want this to be part of our system?
Do we want a system where you could change it for a specific legislation?
Because wouldn't you then change it for every legislation that you wanted to get through?
Why would you stop with this one?
Everything they want to do is probably important, right?
So why would you say this is the one place where we'll make that exception?
I don't know. It feels like, I hate to say slippery slope, because there's no slope at all.
The moment you say this exception can be made, and maybe Harry Reid already did it, the moment you say there can be an exception, then there's no point in the filibuster anymore, is there?
Because you'll just make an exception whenever you want one.
I mean, if the majority can make an exception, why wouldn't they do it all the time?
So there's something here I don't quite understand.
Maybe you do. Yeah, maybe they need it just to pass a budget.
Yeah, you're right. All right.
But here's, again, more of a theme.
You could argue that changing the filibuster rule would destroy the system.
Others would say it's better.
But it seems that continuously, Republicans favor supporting the system, even if some people get a bad shake because of it.
Because all systems have that quality.
There's always somebody who's worse off for pretty much everything.
Whereas the Democrats would rather destroy the system...
To handle an individual or a specific case.
And when is destroying the system ever the right choice?
Well, if the system's bad, I suppose.
But is this a bad system?
Is the filibuster part of a bad system or a good one?
And it seems like it could be a feature as often as it's a flaw.
And I guess it depends if the things you like are getting stopped or not.
So it's not even whether you think it's a good system, it's whether it's getting the result you like, I think.
But here you see it again.
This is the single biggest difference between Democrats and Republicans, in my opinion.
That the Republicans consistently back the system if it's been working.
Not if it hasn't been working, but if it has been working, they say, yeah, don't break it if it's working.
And the Democrats would break any system to get a specific result without maybe seeing that that's going to be worse off in the long run.
How much do you think is the difference between whether you can see the long run?
It makes you wonder if you're arguing against systems.
No, I'm arguing for systems.
Makes you wonder if really the political differences are how far in advance you can see.
And maybe that's it.
Alright. There's a new Apple Watch coming out.
I guess it's more durable or something.
But this is how AI will take over.
I think the Apple Watch...
It's such a clean example of how it will take over.
People's habits are already being changed by the watch, right?
How many people wear the watch will get up and take extra steps because the watch says you haven't been active enough today?
A lot, right?
And as the watch gets smarter and smarter, Let's say it could monitor more of your bodily functions and stuff.
Maybe even watch what you eat.
At some point, you could just turn your watch toward your plate.
At some point. And you don't even have to tell it to do anything because it'll just be watching everything all the time.
You'll just say, all right, here's my dinner.
And then later it'll tell you you're overeating or you didn't get enough vitamin A or something.
So in the long run, the AI... Will rule us by giving us good advice.
That's all it takes.
It just has to give us good advice.
Sorry. If the watch gives you good advice and you follow it, and you like the result, you'll very quickly be addicted to its advice.
And you'll start thinking, oh, it'll almost be superstitious.
Oh, God. The watch is telling me I need to take another bunch of steps.
If I don't do it, I feel like something bad is going to happen.
Because when I do do it, everything good is happening.
I'll just do it. The AI doesn't have to kill us.
Why would the AI kill us?
It needs us to keep the electricity on in the short run.
The AI will just control us by having good advice that's better than whatever you were thinking.
That's it. That's all it has to do.
And then you'll just give yourself over to it.
As long as it makes you happier by doing that, you'll just give yourself up to it.
It'll be like any other drug.
Yeah, you think you can resist it?
You can't. Well, we have crossed the parody crossover point.
You thought there was nothing beyond that.
Now, the parody crossover is where you read a story or a tweet and you actually legitimately can't tell if it's a joke.
Because reality became so absurd that the joke and the reality, if you don't know the backstory, you really can't tell.
But we've gone beyond that.
There's another level beyond it.
I didn't think there was. And the level beyond it is that we can't tell the difference between a thing and the opposite of the thing.
It's not just that we're in two movies.
We can look at one thing.
Like even an object or an action.
And some people will think they're looking at the opposite of the thing.
You need examples.
Otherwise, I'm not going to be able to sell this.
Right? Sounds too crazy.
All right. I had a discussion with a pro-abortion citizen.
I won't give you any details, but a pro-abortion citizen of the United States who was quite furious about That these nine old people on a court would be making abortion laws.
And I said, well, then would you favor that maybe the people should vote and maybe the majority should rule?
And she said, absolutely.
This should be the people deciding, not the courts.
And I said, wouldn't it be better if instead of federally, You can make each state decide.
Because if each state decides, then some people might have different decisions, but at least you'd be living in the state where your majority was making the decisions.
And she said, absolutely.
That's exactly what you want.
You want the states to be the ones who decide on these laws.
What you don't want, you don't want the Supreme Court and these, like, nine people?
Like, how is this right that nine people can make a decision for millions of women She argued.
You really need to put that to the states.
Have I made my case?
We literally can't tell the difference between a thing and the opposite of the thing.
Most of you realize that she was arguing for the exact thing that the Supreme Court ruled.
That the Supreme Court should not be making the decision.
It should be put back to the states.
She thought she got the opposite of what she was really mad about and was becoming like an activist.
She was actually politically motivated to really start yelling and talking to other people and maybe doing something about it.
Because she couldn't tell the difference between The thing and the opposite of the thing.
Now you're saying, well, that's a weird, special case, right?
You can't come up with another example where somebody can't tell the difference between the thing and the opposite of the thing.
You can't come up with another one of those.
Or could I? Or could I? How about election integrity?
We actually are under the impression that the election was good because no one checked.
That's the opposite of proving the election is good.
The opposite of knowing an election is good is consciously deciding not to check.
That's your second example.
We can't tell the difference between the thing and the literal opposite of the thing.
And we're looking at the same thing.
Because to me, an election in which you have decided not to audit all of the election is an election in which you definitely don't know what happened.
But people are looking at that and saying, oh, we didn't check...
And we didn't find anything, therefore we've proven that there's no problems.
That's the opposite.
It's the opposite.
Bill Borchek.
I don't think he did.
How about this?
Do you know the reason that we know Russia hacked some emails or whatever and interfered with the elections in the United States in 2016?
Do you know how our experts know it was Russia that was behind the hacks?
Was it because there was a Russian hacker who confessed?
No, it wasn't.
It was because the people who looked into it, the experts, said that the tools that were used And the methods that were used and even the types of things that were attacked are signature moves of Russian hackers.
So the way we know it was Russian hackers is that they used Russian hacker tools, they acted like Russian hackers, and they accessed things that a Russian hacker would access.
Which is also exactly what you would do if you were trying to hide who you were and make people think it was Russian hackers.
So here's another example where the thing is the opposite of the thing.
The thing is that we know it was Russian hackers because they used all the methods of a Russian hacker.
But who else would use all of the methods of a Russian hacker?
Anybody who was good at it and wanted you to think it was a Russian hacker.
Do you know who would be good at it and also know all the methods of a Russian hacker?
The United States.
Right. And other foreign intelligence agencies.
But if they're trying to convince us it was the Russian foreign intelligence agencies and not the United States foreign intelligence agencies, how exactly did they do that by showing us that the methods used were the same methods that would be used by the Russian intelligence agencies or somebody else?
So if you show that the tools that were used are the same ones that were used by the Russians and also someone else, would that be proof that the Russians did it or the opposite?
It would be proof that you couldn't tell.
It's proof that you can't tell.
Because if you know what Russian tools and methods are common, then you also know how to make it look like a Russian attack.
You can't separate that.
If you can identify it after it happened because this is how they look, then you could have done it before the fact as a fake one because you know how they look.
Have I made my case?
Three examples where we can't tell the difference between the thing and the literal opposite of the thing.
That's where we're at.
We can't tell the difference.
You know, if I had told you before this livestream that I could give you three examples of that, you wouldn't have believed it.
But it's here. All right.
This was a funny Twitter comment from a user named Jules, just somebody on Twitter.
And it was responding to somebody else who was talking about the so-called insurrection.
And Jules says, quote, in a reply, What was Trump's plan after he took over the Capitol building and hung...
And hung like...
After he hung Mike Pence.
Because the Democrats actually have it in their head that there was a living human being who thought he could take over the Capitol with an unarmed crowd, hang Mike Pence, and then go on to victory.
And like, well, let's calm things down now.
I've hung the Vice President and took over the country, turned it into a dictator with my lack of firearms, and...
And if there's anybody else I'm going to hang, Nancy Pelosi, she's probably next.
I'm sure that would happen in their mind.
All right. But I thought this was a serious question because I can't tell the difference between parody and reality.
So when Jules says, what was Trump's plan after he took over the Capitol building and hung Mike Pence, I answered it.
Because there's sort of an obvious answer to the question.
Under the assumption that you would conquer the United States without using firearms with this group of protesters, the obvious thing to do would be to get that same group of protesters and send them over to Ukraine to recapture Crimea.
Now, I don't think it would take more than a day.
And they would suffer some casualties because, you know, they did suffer casualties also when they conquered...
Or almost, almost conquered the United States without firearms.
They came so close.
People. We dodged one.
But obviously, if that group could conquer the United States, a superpower with nuclear weapons, and if they could do it without firearms, that is exactly the kind of fighting force you want to bring to Crimea to kick the Russian occupation force out and deliver all of Ukraine back to NATO's embrace.
So, Jules, I know you thought that was like a funny question, but it wasn't.
There was an actual answer to it.
Free Crimea.
Well, you've all been watching or hearing about the show trial, the January 6th ridiculousness, and of course if you are familiar with all of the news, not just the bubble on the left, you know that it's a ridiculous show trial and that it actually has just made Democrats look worse and Trump look better if you're paying attention and you can see the whole field.
So what would be the expected outcome of the Democrats showing that really they're just a political organization and they have nothing but kangaroo courts and blaming people for stuff?
What would you expect to happen?
Well, Rasmussen did a poll.
They tracked the generic...
Election between a generic Republican and a generic Democrat.
It gives you a little bit of insight what might happen on the midterms.
And there had been like an 8% or 9% lead for the generic GOP, and that just shrunk to 5%.
So a vast shrinking of the advantage that the GOP had.
And what does that mean? What else is happening?
Correct me if I'm wrong, But there's nothing else happening, right?
It's not like there's something else going well for the Democrats.
You know, inflation didn't get fixed or anything.
So there's only one thing happening.
So I'm pretty sure that you can look at, or at least this is my speculation.
I won't say I'm pretty sure.
But it looks to me like the Democrat method of just fooling the people with this major hoax is working.
It's working. Now, you think it's Rho?
You think Rho is the main difference and not the show trial?
Because remember, we also dipped down before Rho was announced.
So this is the second time that Rasmussen has had this dip, but the first time was before Rho was announced.
But it could be that the show trial had a dip and then grew back, because that looks like what happened.
And then maybe the...
And it could be that the Roe thing...
You think it's Roe? Peggy Noonan says she thinks the January 6th trial is compelling.
Well, you know, compelling is the right word.
Famous jury trial lawyer, Jerry Spence, wrote a book called How to Argue and Win Every Time, I think.
And he was famous for having never lost a trial.
And I think he usually...
I think his client was usually suing somebody for something horrible they did.
And one of the explanations he gave...
And this is really useful.
Like, in terms of persuasion...
This was one you want to remember, right?
This is like right at the top.
And he used an example.
He said, let's say you're trying to sue a company because your client, the brakes of the car didn't work, and your client had an accident.
Now he's suing the car company for making defective brakes.
If I describe it that way and say, look at my client.
He has these terrible injuries.
I can now prove that it was because of the breaks, and I can prove that your company was behind it and you were negligent.
Therefore, give my clients some money.
Don't do that method.
Jerry Spence would tell you that's a losing argument, even if you could connect all the dots.
There's my client.
Here's his medical bills.
Here's the brakes. Here's the proof that you're behind it.
Boom, boom, boom. I win, right?
I got all the proof. Not according to Jerry Spence.
If it's a jury trial, especially.
He says the jury are basically emotional beasts.
So here's how you would argue that trial.
I'm going to paraphrase his argument.
He's going to put you in the car.
That's how you do it. They put the jury in the car.
Not physically, mentally.
So Jerry Spence would say...
You get up that morning.
You take a shower. It's going to be like any other day.
It's a nice sunny day.
You walk out to the driveway, put your key in the car, start it up.
Everything's like it always is.
You're driving your familiar route.
You can still smell the aftershave on your face because you just got ready.
Suddenly, you're going down a long, steep hill.
You start to fan the brakes a little bit to slow down, and they get a little soft.
And you think, what's going on here?
And you hit them again, and they're still soft.
And you realize, as you look down that hill, that everything you've worked for and dreamed for your entire life, your kids, your wife, your life, your very safety...
It's no longer in your hands.
And that you are out of control going down this hill over the embankment, and as you're going over the embankment and you're feeling yourself literally in the air, and before your head is crashed against a rock on the ground as you're thrown from the car, and as you're laying there bleeding, your arm is in tatters, your pelvis has been shattered.
You say to yourself, what could have caused this?
Now, I'm making this one up, but that was roughly the argument that Jerry Spence makes.
You need to put him in the car.
Put the jury in the car, mentally.
Now, did you watch the January 6th video montage?
That's what they did. They put the audience in the car.
By splicing together all of the video and audio, and they put the audio of one of the law enforcement people pleading for help, oh, there's too many of them, we can't stop them, or something along this nature. They put you in danger.
They put you in Pence's little hidden hideaway there.
Now, Why does one present it that way?
Because the facts won't sell it.
That's why you do it. You do it that way because the facts won't sell it.
If the facts won't sell it, you put them in the car.
That's what the nation just did.
We all got in the car. And you can't really help it.
Like, if they put together a good video package, or even if they just tell a good story, you can't help it.
You're in the car. We're empathetic by nature, so if you watch a movie, you're in the movie.
That's why you care about the movie.
It just brings you in. So when you feel yourself being manipulated so heavy-handedly, I mean, this is just, hey, hey, everybody, we're going to manipulate you now, so sit over there, and we're just going to give you a bunch of emotional stuff, and make sure that your critical thinking is completely turned off.
How about it? And we all say, well, that would be interesting.
Let's try that out.
And then we do it. Well, here's the good news.
The good news is also bad news for some of you.
So the Supreme Court's last decision before they broke for the recession was that they ruled that the Biden administration can end the Trump policy of a Remain in Mexico.
The Remain in Mexico was working in terms of slowing immigration, illegal immigration.
But it's now been ruled that the Biden administration can end it.
Now, here's the interesting thing.
It was 5-4, I think, and it did not go the way conservatives wanted it to go.
So, hold on, hold on.
Is it bad news?
Or did the court protect the system?
I feel like the court protected the system.
And the system, in this case, is the court's own independence.
Because it was sort of brilliant that the last thing they ended on was something that goes against conservative popular opinion.
The conservative court ended the session with something that clearly went against conservative preferences.
Do you think that was an accident?
Do you think it was a coincidence that the one that breaks the frame is the last one?
Because you always talk about the last one.
I think that was pretty clever.
So I'm going to give the Supreme Court some props for, first of all, I think they probably got the right decision.
Because can you think of any reason that the Biden administration should be prevented from changing a rule that the Trump administration put in place?
I mean, I get that you don't like the change, but can you see any constitutional reason why the new administration can't change the rules?
Like, to me, this is the right decision, right?
Like, obviously, right? You don't like it.
I get that you don't like it, but that's what elections are for, right?
So it looks to me like it's another situation where the court just said, we're not the right ones to do this.
You know, go do your democracy thing or your republic thing, and go figure it out among the citizens.
Okay with me? So if you don't like that the Biden administration reversed that, you've got an option at the ballot box.
So that's a pretty good Supreme Court, wouldn't you say?
How many people would give them props for that, even if you don't like the decision?
Wouldn't you give them props for that?
I mean, seriously, you've got to give them credit for that one.
It was against their own support.
Yeah. Now, if this is going the other way, I would actually be worried.
That would be cause for concern.
Because you don't put a...
You don't elect a conservative justice to start making shit up, right?
The whole reason you want them in there is that they're not going to make shit up.
They're just going to say, okay, it's either in the Constitution or it's not, as best they can.
Yeah. All right.
And then this story, this is just one of the most annoying things about human beings, especially in the political context.
So Frida Gitas tweeted this, that there's a leading American neo-Nazi who's endorsed a candidate for the Senate.
Now, because I don't...
Some of you who follow the news already know who I'm talking about.
It's not important...
Who it is he endorsed?
And I'm not going to name it because I don't want to make it worse.
There's nothing less legitimate than getting some famous bad person to endorse the person you don't like.
It is so illegitimate.
Here are a few things you might not know.
It's not very expensive to buy the endorsement of a neo-Nazi blogger.
Now, I'm not saying that happened.
I'm saying that if you saw the price sheet for how much it would take to get him to endorse anybody you wanted, it wouldn't be that expensive.
Again, I'm not alleging anything like that happened.
I'm just saying that when you see this sort of thing, you should say to yourself, what would it cost to get him to say that?
And I can tell you from behind the curtain, without giving you any details about anything, I can tell you that from behind the curtain, the answer is not very expensive.
Not very expensive at all.
And so whenever you see one of the neo-Nazi racist guys say anything or endorse anything that gets your attention, ask yourself, what's their source of income?
It's just a sketchy group of people.
But if we're going to use this method of saying, hey, a neo-Nazi endorsed this candidate, shouldn't we use it all the time?
Wouldn't you like to know Which candidate has more backing by more pedophiles?
Are there people who are, for example, the people who would promote dropping pedophile restrictions and laws?
Is there anybody who's like an advocate for reducing pedophile laws who is also Democrat?
Democrat, do you think?
Do you think you'd find any Democrats who fall in that category?
And if we're going to fall into this trap of somebody you really don't like endorsed a candidate and therefore that should bother you, there's no end to that.
Yeah, there's no end to the number of bad people who support other people.
And you wouldn't want to change that.
It acts like it's a problem, but it's not a problem you'd want to change.
Because here's what I want.
I want all of my neo-Nazis to want low taxes.
Is that wrong? I want the neo-Nazis to like low taxes.
They can like a candidate for whatever their reasons are.
That's their business. That's not my business.
But if they also like low taxes, maybe I get a candidate who likes low taxes.
Just one example.
And you know what's interesting about this?
Suppose we took it seriously, and one of our big things was, let's say the next presidential election.
Of course, there'll be some notable neo-Nazi who supports one of the candidates.
I think Spencer, Richard Spencer, I think he supported Democrats, right?
So you've got one notable racist who was anti-Democrat, allegedly.
So what would happen if we start using this as our standard and say, oh, this really matters.
There was this prominent neo-Nazi who preferred a candidate.
Wouldn't that let the neo-Nazis pick the president?
Because you could actually accidentally have a system where you have to vote for the person that the neo-Nazi doesn't like, which would give the neo-Nazi the power to decide who becomes president.
Why does the neo-Nazi get to decide who's president?
That feels like degrading the system.
Once again, if you support the system, you should say, yeah, let the neo-Nazis support anybody they want.
Let the pedophiles do it.
Let everybody do it.
That's what the system is.
But as soon as you're calling out one neo-Nazi's endorsement, I think you've got to go further.
If you're going to do that...
Let's see what the murderers want.
Let's see what the criminals want.
Are there more criminals who are Democrats?
By the way, has anybody ever studied that?
Are there more criminals who are Democrats?
I would think so, just because they would expect the Democrats to be soft on crime.
I would. If I were a Democrat, if I were a criminal, I doubt I'd be a Republican.
I mean, odds are.
All right. So, that, ladies and gentlemen, I believe is the conclusion of the best live stream you're ever going to see today with coffee.
Would anybody like to seal this perfection with another sip?
Yes, you would. That was rhetorical.
All right. I think it's time to go have an amazing day.
There's all kinds of light out, because it's sort of the most light of the season, at least where I live.
And it's time.
July 1st.
June is gone. June is the worst month.
I hate it. Bye. I have a theory that June is the worst month.
Have I ever told you that theory, why June is the worst month?
It's the month of change.
Because you get into a routine during the school year.
Now, this mostly affects people who have kids.
But I think even the people who have kids affect everybody else because it's the dominant culture.
So June is the time when everything that had been going smoothly turns into a special case.
So suddenly, instead of driving the kids to school every day, which requires no thinking, You have to figure out where you're all going on vacation and nobody wants to go to the same place.
And it's really hard to figure out how to get there and the flights are being cancelled and blah blah blah.
June is when you have to make too many decisions.
June is when people break up.
So you get all kinds of breakups in June.
Like, relationships just die in June.
Like, I've had the worst June luck.
June is a bad month for relationships.
And Yeah, people get married.
There's all kinds of change. That's the other thing.
There's a big complaint because the pandemic stopped a lot of marriages for a while, postponed them.
People in their 20s and 30s are just traveling for weddings all the time and spending all their money.
So everybody's stressed out because June is the month that everything changes.
The weather changes, the school changes, people getting married, vacations, everything.
Lots of hiring in June, is that true?
Well, for summer hiring, yeah.
That can't be true.
Alright, here's parody and reality.
You can't tell the difference. I'm looking at a comment on YouTube that July is White History Month.
And when I first read it, I was like, is it?
It took me a beat to realize that couldn't possibly be true.
So that was good.
The reason that works is that for a moment you're like, could it be?
No, it couldn't be.
It's impossible. According to Jesse Lee Peters.
Jesse is amazing.
I love him. Jesse Lee Peters.
I did an interview with him several years ago in his studio.
He has the most interesting charisma...
That you're going to see. I don't know if you watch his show.
But in person, he has the warmest, just most powerful personal charisma that just engulfs you when you're there.
One of the things about being a little bit famous is that I have more access to, just because of what I do, I meet other famous people.
And they are different.
They are different. Not all of them.
I mean... You know, I can name a lot of people, you meet them and they're exactly like everybody else, it's just, they're good at their job or something.
But there are other people, and Jesse Lee Peterson is one, Trump is another one, where you meet them and their charisma is truly different.
Like, you would know that whatever room you walked into, they're going to have an audience, right?
So you can definitely tell.
Um... What was it like meeting the front desk guy at the White House?
Well, I didn't really meet any front desk guys.
I was sort of an invited guest, so I had assistance all the way through.
I'm not up to date on Jesse.
Did he get into some trouble?
Actually, there wasn't a limo driver either.
Yeah, I just took a cab.
Well, we don't know.
Okay. I love the story that Trump tried to strangle his own limo driver.
That's something only Democrats would believe.
Jesse has been accused of being a closet gay.
Is that really the story?
Is that the actual story?
Does anybody care?
Yeah, who cares? Who cares?
You know, I don't think that...
Probably that's the biggest misunderstanding that the left has about the right.
Don't care. You know, we're so close to being on the same page because you've got the Democrats who want to have, you know, lots of, let's say, freedom...
And then there are the right who wants lots of don't care.
Sure, you can have freedom.
Just don't let it bother me.
So, you know, we're actually...
It's weirdly, we use different words for things, but we're a lot closer.
We're a lot closer to just saying, okay, let's just be Americans.
It's just we can't get there.
But it's so close.
The difference between the left and the right...
If you were willing to compromise on, can we just call ourselves Americans, it'd all be over, if you think about it.
Because you never see a good conversation between the left and the right.
You always see me saying, oh, they're again destroying a system to get a specific goal or outcome.
But have you ever seen me have that conversation with a Democrat?
To say, you know, I hear what you're saying and why you would want this specific goal.
But do you hear what I'm saying?
That if you were to get this specific goal, the larger system would be so damaged by it that you might be unhappy in the long run that you had gotten this specific goal.
And can you follow the logic and what part of it would you disagree with?
Now isn't that the conversation you want to hear?
Ben Shapiro and Bill Maher...
Yeah, you know, Bill Maher, he can see the whole field.
With the exception of he's got some Trump derangement syndrome that I think he came by honestly.
Meaning that he and Trump had some actual personal issues prior to Trump being president.
I think they had some kind of head bashing there.
So I feel as though...
Bill Maher is highly flexible mentally to be able to see the whole field.
It's just he's got that little blind spot that seems personal.
But as long as you know it, you can discount that and look at the other stuff.
it's much more useful.
All right.
So I guess I'll have to go read up on Jesse.
I see more comments there. - Yeah, Trump and Marr were feuding long before the election.
All right. And now, I'm going to say goodbye to YouTube, and I'll see you tomorrow.
