Episode 2240 Scott Adams: Word-Thinking Brought Us Antifa, Marriage, And More. Bring Coffee
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, ADL Democrat Attack Dog, Elon Musk, Defending Liberalism, Andrew Tate Apple App, Andy Ngo, F-35 911 Call, Democrat Scams, Cancelling Republicans, Senator Menendez, Congressional Corruption, Berkley Law School, Governor Newsom, Parental Gender Affirmation, Marriage, Word Thinking, Antifa, Corrupt Media, Jennifer Rubin, Affording Free Speech, Andrew Tate Young Male Influence, Clinton Global Initiative, Clinton's Rebuilding Ukraine, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
To the highlight of your day in human civilization itself.
It's cold coffee with Scott Adams and I'm pretty sure you've never had a better time.
Sure, the birth of your children, that was cool.
Maybe your marriage.
But, not as good as this.
And if you'd like to take this up to another level, a level that nobody could even imagine is possible.
All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It'll make you level up.
That's right.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Now go.
We are now bonded.
We are one.
Whatever you think I think, whatever you feel I feel.
Ow!
Stop it.
Alright, now let's get on with this.
If you are not aware, and you should be, there is an excellent podcast featuring me as a guest with Noam Dorman and Coleman Hughes.
I think both of them are going to have it available, but if you look in my Twitter feed you can find the link, or just go to YouTube and search for Coleman Hughes, and I think you'll find it.
People are saying it's good.
I'm hearing good things about it, so you might like it.
You might also like, at some point today I'll give you a link to my conversation with Mike Mandel and his partner Chris, and we'll talk about hypnosis.
No politics.
So it's my first podcast with no politics.
I think.
I don't think I've ever done one before.
But no politics on that one, just talking about hypnosis.
I think you're going to like that one a lot, actually.
So let's talk about the fake news.
So there's an article in Wall Street Journal by Tim Higgins.
And he's talking about how Tim Cook was in an awkward position because the iPhone maker continues to carry the X platform as an app.
And people are saying, hey, why are you doing that?
But here's, I don't care about that part of the story so much, as the introduction says that, let me read it, let's see, the Chief Executive, Apple's Chief Executive, was asked on CBS News Sunday morning why the iPhone maker continues to advertise on Musk's Twitter-turned-X even as
Listen to this, Jewish civil rights organization raises concern about hateful speech on the social media platform.
So if you saw in the Wall Street Journal that the X platform was, let's see, even as a Jewish civil rights organization raised concern about hateful speech, you'd be pretty worried about that, wouldn't you?
Wow.
How would you like the Wall Street Journal to write that your product Is something that a Jewish rights organization has raised concern about all the hate.
That's pretty bad.
Do you know who the organization is?
They don't mention that right away.
They start without mentioning the name of the organization.
They do mention it later.
It's the ADL.
Now don't you think that a story like this should also include That the ADL is being sued for being a tool of the Democrat Party that they use as an attack dog?
Don't you think that's the biggest part of the story?
The biggest part of the story is that the ADL is a Democrat attack dog organization that's being used to suppress free speech.
How's that not the first paragraph?
No, the first paragraph is that there's a Jewish rights organization that's raising concerns.
Yeah.
I'm pretty sure that if it were the KKK, they would have mentioned that right away.
Oh, there's a group that's protesting.
Who is it?
Who is the group?
Oh, we'll mention that later, but we just need you to know that there's a group that's really against them.
There's a group protesting.
But who?
There's a group protesting.
The KKK?
If you don't mention that the ADL is a thoroughly disgraced organization that has a political motive first and secondarily probably trying to help some people too, that's complete fake news.
That's in the Wall Street Journal.
All right.
Here's another story that I was worried I might be in but I'm not.
Sometimes I have to read stories to find out if I'm in them.
It's like, oh shit, oh shit, I might be in this one.
It's a weird part of my life.
But anyway, there's a story by David Runciman in some publication that I didn't care about.
I didn't care enough about it to write it down.
Was it The Guardian, maybe?
I don't know.
But it's in some publication.
And what David Runciman did was he Follow the same people that Elon Musk follows.
So you wanted to find out, you know, who's influencing Elon Musk?
What is Elon Musk?
You know, what is he interested in?
What's he tweeting and stuff?
Because that's that would be like a way to get into his head.
Now, apparently you can do this with Elon Musk in a way you can't do it with some other people because he only follows 400 some people, which is a manageable number.
Others may follow tens of thousands.
So other famous people anyway.
But one of the statements in here is that David found out by looking at all the people that Elon Musk follows, that Elon Musk is not following anyone who, and I'll put this in quotes, makes a serious case for liberalism.
So Musk doesn't follow anyone, nobody.
There's not a single person on that list of 400 or more people who, quote, makes a serious case for liberalism.
Do you know what other list also does not include anybody who makes a serious case for liberalism?
The list of all the people in the world.
Name one person who has an argument for liberalism.
I don't believe I've ever heard it, because Do you think Soros makes a case for liberalism?
He's the very person who doesn't.
He says what he's trying to do, but does he make an argument for it?
I've never seen it.
He just says what he's trying to do.
I've never seen an argument.
So I'm actually curious.
No, Bernie doesn't make an argument.
He just says what he wants.
He says what's wrong with the current system, and then he says what he wants.
That's not an argument.
That's just what you want.
I've never even seen an argument for liberalism.
Because in my view, an argument for liberalism would be an argument against a system that had human incentives as a key variable.
So how would anybody defend that?
It's an indefensible position.
Because liberalism gets you to socialism.
It gets you away from any kind of competitive free market situation, which is the only thing that's ever worked.
All right.
So if you ever hear of anybody who has a serious case of defending liberalism, well, I'd love to know who that is.
I'll follow them right away.
Because that would be quite a feat to pull that off.
And by the way, liberalism is different from You know, wanting everybody to have a good life.
I want everybody to have a good life.
I'm not sure that's liberalism.
All right.
So Apple is removing the Andrew Tate app called the Real World Portal.
And they're removing it because somebody complained.
I think some people who consider themselves victims of him in the past complained that the app encourages misogyny.
And there's evidence to suggest it is an illegal pyramid scheme.
So they pulled it.
They pulled it because someone else thinks it encourages misogyny.
Do you think there were examples?
Do you know what else encourages misogyny?
Every social media platform.
Can you name a platform that doesn't encourage both misogyny, misandry, misandry, you know, discrimination against men, hatred against men, and also the opposite of those, which is don't do any of that.
There are plenty of places.
Yeah, Pornhub.
Is that a reason to take a nap down?
So all you have to do is accuse somebody and they lose their free speech.
So the Tates can't have free speech and they can't even have an app because somebody complained that it might be a problem.
That it might be a problem.
Not that it is.
This is an important distinction.
Nobody says it is a problem.
They said it might be.
And it got pulled.
Do you think that that's political or is that just business?
Well...
That doesn't look like business to me.
It's business in the sense that they don't want to anger their, you know, Apple doesn't want to anger their customers.
But I can't imagine that they would have made this decision for, you know, for safety reasons.
It just, to me, it looks like it's political.
As most things do look these days.
Andy, no.
He was trying to do some speaking engagements and got cancelled first at the Commonwealth Club and then at, I guess, the Marriott Hotel in Weston.
Forced the Weston Richmond, I guess that must be the parent company, to cancel the speaking event because Antifa complained.
Antifa complained, not because of what he said, but that they didn't like what he might say.
And then he got cancelled.
So Andy Ngo doesn't have free speech.
Andrew Tate doesn't have free speech, because people are afraid of what they might say.
So that's happening.
Let's talk about that F-35 pilot.
Now there's a 9-11 call, which is pretty fascinating if you haven't heard it.
Because I guess the downed pilot, who sounds male, To answer one of your conspiracy theories was the pilot might be female.
But it's a male voice, so I'm assuming it's a male.
But claims he was flying at 2,000 feet and was forced to eject due to an aircraft failure.
So what makes it an aircraft failure if it can still fly for 60 miles or 80 miles?
So we have more questions than we have answers.
What kind of failure is that?
Now 2,000 feet is pretty low, isn't it?
Is there a pilot?
There's always a pilot watching.
2,000 feet is kind of low, right?
3,000 to 5,000 would be a pretty good altitude for a plane.
So that answers one question.
So one of the questions is, it might be that he was more likely to eject Because it was low to the ground.
Relatively low to the ground.
So I would eject faster if I'm low to the ground on just a little bit of trouble.
I wouldn't wait for catastrophic trouble.
But if I were at 5,000 feet, maybe I'd wait to see if it's catastrophic.
See if there's anything I can do to correct it.
So we're at least hearing things that are starting to make sense.
Which is some kind of mechanical problem, and he wasn't flying that high, so getting out probably was the right call.
I don't know for sure.
I don't know what they're, you know, I don't know what the procedures are exactly, but so far, so far it sounds like a mechanical problem.
That doesn't mean it was hacked.
It could have been ordinary, so we don't know that yet.
All right, here's some things we've realized lately.
Now these are the things that make me wonder, how in the world could Democrats win elections?
And it's because they don't see the news.
But here's some things we know.
Black Lives Matter was always a scam.
Would you agree?
It was a financial scam.
At least by the leaders.
Now, I have to tell you, I heard that early on from members of Black Lives Matter.
So I knew this, I knew this in, I don't know, Whenever it started practically.
So we know now that although many many of the people who marched were of course sincere that the organization was a financial scam.
Now we're hearing charges that Ibram Kendi and his anti-racism center might be also either poorly run or a financial scam.
Because there's money missing and nothing good happened.
We're also finding out that Biden's relationship with Ukraine is almost certainly the worst case scenario, that he was in fact crooked, is still crooked, and extracted a lot of money through a sketchy situation.
So that looks to be exactly what it looked like.
Teachers unions we now know are not for the benefit of children.
We can see quite clearly that they're the benefit of each other and the benefit of the leader of the teachers union being politically active, probably looking for higher office is my guess.
So we know that the teachers unions are not working for the benefit of children or parents or families or anything like that.
We know the ADL is a political hit job and no longer the respected organization that they once were.
We know that all these cancellations we're seeing are political, because they tend to be one-sided.
So we've seen politics take down Tucker, Russell Brand, they're going after Portnoy, they went after Musk, they went after Trump, they went after me, they went after Roseanne, and we can see now that the pattern is pretty clear.
And we also know that the way the cancellations work is that the Democrats have very cleverly, and I have to give them credit for this, Put Democrats in charge of all kinds of organizations, and they could be watchdog organizations or fact-checking organizations, or think tanks, but it gives the impression that there's lots of external people who agree with the Democrat message, and maybe not.
So that now the cancellation, let's say, superstructure is designed to cancel people on one side of the aisle.
And it works really well.
So they can use these organizations to go after the platforms, the platforms cave, and they just cancel everybody that they need to cancel to get on with business.
So we know now that the cancellations are part of an organized political feature of our country and not any kind of organic anything.
We know that the reason TikTok is not banned is because there's a billionaire donor to Republicans.
So that's on the Republicans.
We know that there's no progress in defeating the cartels or fentanyl because apparently there's somebody powerful in our country who doesn't want the cartels to be defeated.
Presumably that's the CIA.
Don't know that, but if we knew it for sure, then it would be a bad job by the CIA, I guess.
But evidently there's no interest in closing the border by somebody powerful enough to keep it open.
So we don't know who exactly, but there's somebody with enough power to keep the American border open.
Who the hell is that?
Who has that much power?
I don't know.
Don't know.
We know from the Twitter files that everything you thought about censorship was real.
That the platforms were in fact censoring.
Still doing it.
You know, not all of them.
But still doing it.
We know that's real.
And probably nothing you can do about it ever.
What else we know?
We know that this Bob Menendez Who's now being charged with being a big ol' crook.
He had the committee job that Joe Biden used to have, which is, can you tell me the name of Menendez?
What was his job?
Foreign Relations?
He was the Chairman of the Foreign Intelligence.
So if you're the Chairman of the Foreign Intelligence Group, apparently it's really easy to get other countries to bribe you, because you're sort of the perfect person to bribe.
So Menendez is being accused of taking gold bars and big piles of cash and envelopes and For the benefit of Egypt.
And maybe for the benefit of some Egyptian-American entrepreneurs.
Do you know what's wrong with that story?
Did you see all the obvious evidence that Bob Menendez is bad?
And it's like really obvious?
Like super super obvious that it's all true?
Here's one of the pieces of evidence that we're told they found.
Not only did they find gold bars In the home, in the safe, and that's pretty damning.
But they found cash in envelopes, lots of it, like just all over the house, big piles of cash.
But the funniest one is that there were two different windbreakers that actually had Bob Menendez's name on it, and the cash was in the pocket, in an envelope.
Two jackets that had his name on it, his name on it.
With piles of cash in them.
Does that sound real to you?
I'm sorry.
You lost me on this one.
No.
No.
There's no fucking way that they found two jackets with his fucking name on it that had piles of cash in the pockets.
Right.
Now, I'm no bribe taker, but I know if I were a bribe taker, I would take the big piles of money out of the pockets of my windbreaker.
Apparently he has a safe.
He has a safe, but he keeps the big piles of money in the thing with his name on it in the closet.
That's what we're told to believe.
Now, I do believe that he's bad.
I do believe that he's crooked.
I don't believe that the evidence they found was all real.
He looks like he was set up, but also crooked.
Would you agree?
Does it look to you like the Biden administration took him out?
It looks like the Biden administration took him out.
Why?
Don't know.
Could have been any reason, but he looks like he is guilty but also set up to make sure that there's no doubt about him getting put away.
Do you also know that they've had the goods on him for a year and he stayed in his job?
They've had the goods on him for a year and he stayed in his job.
The head of foreign intelligence.
The big bribe job.
He stayed there.
Well, it could be that somebody was leaning on him, and then he wasn't doing what they wanted, so they said, all right, I guess we can't blackmail you anymore, so we'll just take you down.
That's what it looks like.
There's no way to know what really happened, but that's what it looks like.
So it looks crooked.
It looks crooked, but so does he.
Now, do you think there's any chance that Biden wasn't doing the same thing when he was in that same job?
It was literally the primary bribery job.
No.
The Biden crime organization is exactly what it looks like.
And probably the Menendez operation was exactly what it looked like.
Now, do you think those are the two crooked people in Congress and the rest are pretty good?
No.
It looks like maybe most of Congress is taking huge cash payments.
Not all.
But maybe all the people in the key jobs.
Because most of the Congress people don't really make any difference except one vote.
So it's probably the people in the key jobs are all crooked at this point.
Probably all crooked.
Both sides, I guess.
All right.
Berkeley Law School had hosted an author And the big problem in the Berkeley Law School is that they don't have enough black students or faculty.
But the funny part is that the administration is being blamed for that.
As if the administration were not the most liberal and concerned about diversity in the entire planet Earth.
There was nothing that Berkeley could do to avoid their own trap, which is, if you're the complainee people, and you attract more complainee people, they're gonna complain about you.
That's unavoidable.
If your admissions requirements are not merit, but rather to bring in more complainee people, what do you expect that's gonna happen?
Exactly this.
Exactly this.
What was the name of the author, Heather MacDonald?
No, Heather... Heather MacDonald, right?
And I guess she's got a new book out.
This sounds interesting.
But she does a good job of not walking into any racist traps.
You know, she doesn't say anything that's obviously racist.
While explaining that how could colleges possibly have diversity when the pipeline is empty?
So she says, if you look at the people that high schools are producing, where are all the applicants that we're supposed to be pulling from to get us diversity in college?
They don't exist.
Mathematically, you could not make them diverse unless you lowered your standards so much that it would destroy the enterprise, which is what they're choosing to do.
They're going to choose to lower the standards until the value of the degree is Basically worthless.
That's the actual plan.
Because they can't drop their diversity standard.
So instead they're going to destroy the school.
And it seems obvious and unavoidable.
What else is going to happen?
What else could happen?
There's no other possibility.
So liberalism is eating them from the inside.
Let's talk about Newsom.
Governor Newsom vetoed a bill that came to his desk.
So if he'd signed it, it would have been law, but he vetoed it.
This has some double negatives in it.
It was the law that would have said in California, if one of your parents does not affirm your gender choice, That that would be taken into consideration when custody decisions are made.
So if you had, for example, a divorced couple and the father said, I do not accept your gender identification, child.
You are what you were born.
And the mother says, no, no, the child is what the child says they are.
Then the mother would get custody, in all likelihood, if all other things being equal.
And here's the story.
Newsom vetoed that.
It was the most lefty looking thing you've ever seen in your life.
And Newsom, who many people say is eyeing the top job, knew that that was way too far.
You wouldn't have a chance, you wouldn't have a chance of winning a national election if you would approve that thing.
Now, who knows why he really thought about it, but I'd like to think That when it came down to politics versus parenting, that he is a parent himself.
I'd like to think that he vetoed it as a parent, and it wasn't even political.
I'd like to think that.
But it also was conveniently very political for running for higher office.
All right, let's talk about backwards science.
There's an article by Rebecca Traster writing for The Cut.
Cut.
C-U-T.
Cut.
Don't add any letters there, because that's not funny.
Don't add any letters to that.
It's just Cut.
C-U-T.
And she makes a case that I've made, which is that Marriage is not the cause of happiness.
Happiness is the cause of marriage.
And that once again, we get cause and effect backwards.
So this is what I've been saying for a while.
Exactly.
If you add an E to cut, it's cute.
So don't add the E because then that would change cut to cute.
So no added letters.
So what do you think of that?
How many of you would agree that happy people are more likely to get married?
And make it work, because they're both happy.
And that unhappy people are less likely to get married.
Because who wants to marry an unhappy person?
Seems like a bad play.
Now, here's my addition to the conversation.
I believe that word thinking, which I'll define, is destroying civilization.
Word thinking.
Now, what word thinking is, is the way AI forms its simulated intelligence.
It takes words that have been spoken in some patterns before, and then it reproduces those patterns, and when we deal with it, it seems like intelligence to us.
But all it is is word, you know, frequency patterns.
Now, I believe that that is also how humans think.
Mostly, we use words in place of reason.
Marriage is one of those words, and boy are we making a mistake with that.
Because a hundred years ago, if you said marriage, it meant something almost entirely different than it means today.
But we use the same word.
It's the same word, but it's a completely different system.
So if somebody says to you, hey, is marriage good?
Your brain is already tuned from a hundred years of civilization, that marriage is always good.
It's the goal of life.
Get married, have kids, right?
So the word carries the reasons.
Do you understand that?
We don't get married because we thought it out.
We got married because the word itself carries the argument.
As soon as you hear married, you're like, well, yeah, that's good.
Good for civilization.
You know, maybe I have to find the right person, but I'm certainly not going to argue with the fact that this word, marriage, has been good for a hundred years, so it must still be good.
Because the word, we have a word for it, and the word was always good before.
But what's happened, Is that the system we call marriage is entirely different.
But we brought with it the things associated with the word, which is our good feelings that that's how you protect the world and civilization and the economy and happiness and everything else.
Now, many of you are going to say, but, but Scott, I know people who got married and they're happy they did.
Of course.
Because people are very different, so you could find somebody who's happy in every system.
Even the worst system in the world, you're going to find somebody who likes it.
Because we're all so different.
My guess is no more than 25% of marriages make sense.
Because you've got that rare combination of people married at the right time, They are the right people.
They both were there for the same reason.
They have the ability to have fights without making it permanent.
Very somewhat rare qualities.
It's hard to find one person who can do any of that.
To find two of them and that they're both attracted is really hard.
So 25% is probably generous.
So here's my take.
I don't think we should be saying marriage yes or no.
That is word thinking.
We should be looking for how to build a system that does work, produces children, produces love, produces some kind of commitment, but also protects people if they find themselves in an abusive marriage or something.
So you've got to have all the protections of being able to leave, but with all the security of knowing that you're not going to die if you do.
So, I don't have a right answer.
I just think that if we think of it as marriage or not marriage, we don't have a chance.
Because what used to be marriage just doesn't exist anymore, and pretending we could go back to it is crazy.
In my opinion, this is the biggest blind spot for conservatives.
Conservatives want to use wishful thinking to take society back to some time that doesn't exist and we can never go back to it, where marriage made a lot more sense.
Is purely wishful thinking.
There's no mechanism to get there.
There's no system.
There's no way to move backwards.
Moving backwards in that way, I mean, that would be a radical move backwards.
There's no path for that.
You can't tweak the taxes to make people get married.
There's so much that has changed since marriage made sense that the conservative view that you just have to want to get married more And everything will be fine?
Oh, there's no problem with black America.
They just need to, you know, stick with their husbands.
They just need to stay married.
That is like the biggest blind spot in politics.
To imagine that that's a thing.
That you just have to want it more.
Oh, I think I'll just think differently.
And now suddenly it makes sense to get married.
People don't get married because it doesn't make sense.
People get divorced because divorcing does make sense.
In many cases.
Right?
So, as much as your wishful thinking would like marriage to be a good institution, it's not, and nobody has an idea how to make it one.
So, there you go.
It's the same problem with Antifa, basically.
Antifa is a word-thinking organization.
They get away with bad behavior by saying, but we're the opposite of fascists, so if you're... Alright, was it because I mentioned Antifa?
Is that why I disappeared?
Maybe.
Could be.
Could be.
So anyway, word thinking.
Ruining America.
Here's another Here's another sign of how corrupt our media is.
So, there are several tweets that are using the exact same words today, Jennifer Rubin is one of them, and the exact same tweet says, here's the deal, colon, Menendez resigns, Clarence Thomas resigns, one standard, corruption is corruption.
What is that?
Is that logic?
Is it politics?
Here's the deal.
Menendez resigns.
Clarence Thomas resigns.
One standard.
Corruption is corruption.
No, it's word thinking.
It's word thinking.
The word thinking is doing the work that reason should be doing.
So what's being done is they're comparing Menendez, who's a Democrat, and apparently literally just took bribes.
That's the accusation.
They literally just took gold bars and bags of cash.
Now, I have some questions about whether it's true, but that's the allegation.
Clarence Thomas, the allegation against Clarence Thomas is that he took trips with his good friend, who was going there anyway.
He was going to be on the private jet, and there were extra seats, and so he brought his friend.
Now, both of them are conservatives.
Do you think they were going to disagree on anything?
Do you think that Clarence Thomas had to be talked into being conservative because his friend was also conservative?
If you look at the Clarence Thomas issue and you say this is just like the Menendez one, corruption is corruption, one standard, you're substituting words for any kind of intelligence worth thinking about the topic.
Of course they should not be treated the same.
Because they're very, very different.
But if you're Jennifer Rubin, you can say, one standard, corruption is corruption.
Well, but they're very different.
But what about the word is the same?
Yeah, but, you know, one of them doesn't even meet the definition of that word, in my opinion.
Yeah, but word, I could use the same word for both of them.
But how about my argument that I could use the same word?
And that's what qualifies as political thought.
Trying to make people accept your word.
Do you ever see that effect with the gender stuff?
It's very simple, people.
Are trans women, women?
And we're done.
Oh, oh, don't give me your details.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
Hold on, hold on.
It's clear, it's simple.
Are trans women, women?
Yes or no?
Yes or no?
And if you say no, you're a bigot and I have to cancel you.
So is it yes or no?
Yes or no?
Which is it?
Yes or no?
Am I going to cancel you?
Or do you just agree with me because I'm a bully?
Yes or no?
So you've seen that, right?
You've seen the people who try to win the argument by making you accept a definition of a word that you think is absurd.
So when you see word thinking, don't participate.
They're making you think past the sale.
If you get into a conversation about the definition of the word woman, which by the way, Matt Walsh falls into, if they can get you to debate the word, you're in the wrong conversation.
Here's a way to handle that.
Well, you know, people use different words for things, but let's talk about the things we all agree on.
Who's going to say no to that?
No, no, no.
You have to agree on the word.
Well, could you agree that the word is sort of the labels we put on stuff?
It's not really the reasoning.
Yeah.
The word is just the label.
So let's just not label it because we're looking at the same thing.
We're looking at the same individual and we can describe that individual the same.
So there's no disagreement.
It's just, let's not put a label on the person.
Let's just talk about what works and what doesn't work.
That's the way you deal with word thinking.
If somebody's trying to win with a word, just back off and say, okay, I don't argue words.
Now, have you seen me do this?
Has anybody seen me do that in public?
And how it just completely shuts down the argument on the other side?
You've probably seen me in podcasts when somebody will say, can you speak to this or that?
And I'll say something like, well, I don't argue about definitions.
But we all see the same situation, so here's what I think about the situation.
Totally disarms anybody who's a word thinker.
Because they don't expect it.
People expect you to take the bait and argue a definition of a word, and then you're already lost.
You know, you're playing a game that you can't win.
So just argue what makes sense, not what labels.
All right.
I made this tweet that was one sentence, and as of this morning it had two million views.
One of them included Elon Musk, who just had a one word affirmative statement about it.
But here's the sentence.
There's a generation of males coming who won't put up with the bullshit.
Now, I didn't really define what the bullshit is, but everybody knows.
I didn't have to define it, but everybody knows.
And the reason there are two million views on this, and so many likes and retweets, is that it's observably true.
Young men are not falling for the brainwashing.
The rest of society either has to fall for the brainwashing, or they have to pretend they fell for it so they don't get cancelled.
If you are an adult male, you are completely neutered by the system.
Because the system, as I described earlier on, has created a whole bunch of organizations and domains that are staffed by people who are primarily political, But they're going to pretend that they're fighting for justice and equity.
But really it's a political point of view.
And so they can cancel any adult male who calls bullshit on bullshit.
So the system will punish all adult males.
So that takes out of the conversation any adult male who wants a job.
Right?
People like Dave Portnoy.
Luckily, he already has his money.
So what you're finding is that the only people who have free speech are people who already made enough money that they can take the hit.
What do these people have in common?
Let me read those names again.
Tucker Carlson, Russell Brand, Dave Portnoy, Elon Musk, Donald Trump, and me, and Roseanne.
What do we all have in common?
We all had enough money so that we could survive having free speech.
And boy, did they come for us.
They came for us hard.
It costs a lot of money, right?
It's very expensive.
The average person cannot afford free speech.
Not even close.
And it's pretty expensive for me.
I mean, you know, they come at you pretty hard.
So, what could save us?
The only thing that can save us is young men who do not already have something to lose.
Young men who don't go to college are the only way we get out of this.
Because the men are gonna have to call bullshit on it because they can see it's bullshit.
It's bad for them, it's bad for the world, it's bad for the country.
And they're gonna.
They're gonna call bullshit on it.
And here's the thing.
If the Democrats are sure that they want to raise your children, let's say your, because most of my audience leans right, so would you agree that the situation we're in is that the left, the Democrats, would like to have a lot of control over how you, most of you being right-leaning, over how you raise your kids.
That's like the main texture of social anxiety right now is who's raising your kids.
And the Democrats want to raise your kids the way they want to raise them.
They want to feminize the boys and they want to basically have a female-oriented society.
But I don't think it's going to work.
Because young men are just not going to put up with it.
They're just not going to put up with the bullshit.
So things are definitely going to change.
And it will only be because of young men with nothing to lose.
So, that's coming.
And here's the funniest part.
Are you ready for this?
Here's the punchline.
The harder the left tries to raise the children on the right, the more Andrew Tate will be raising the children on the left.
That's exactly what's happening.
Andrew Tate is your daddy.
And by the way, I'm not a fan.
I'm not a fan of Andrew Tate, so I want to make that clear.
I'm not a fan.
I'm just calling balls and strikes.
I'm describing a situation.
It's not my preference.
I'm not saying it's my first choice.
I'm saying it's just what's going to happen.
If you keep fucking with adult men, We do have reinforcements.
The cavalry is definitely coming.
It won't be right away.
I might never see it.
Maybe we have to wait half a generation before we see it.
But the cavalry is definitely coming.
And they're not going to take any shit.
So watch out for that.
They're all being raised by Andrew Tate.
Good luck.
All right.
Let's see.
Here's a story that is so outrageous.
That your brain will explode.
And the only reason that this can happen is because the public can't handle the complexity of all the criminal behavior.
All the criminal stuff is just sort of hard to understand.
You really have to dive in.
You've got to sort out, wait, was that this story?
Was that the Menendez crime story?
Was that the Biden crime story?
I'm getting all my crime stories mixed up.
I can't tell who did what anymore.
So this just gets slipped in on the weekend.
The Clinton Global Initiative announced that they're creating a program to rebuild Ukraine.
So the U.S.
is going to send the World Bank $25 billion, and then the World Bank distributes some of that money to the Clintons to help rebuild Ukraine.
Yeah, if you hadn't heard that story until I just said it, is your head falling off?
Did your head just fucking explode?
The level of obvious graft, grift, graft, corruption, this is such obvious in-your-face public corruption that I don't even know what to do with it.
Yeah, this is like the big lie.
It's such a big corrupt play That you're shocked into inactivity.
You're like, I don't think I'm going to work on this today.
I don't think I'm going to form a protest.
It's just so big.
I don't know what to do about this.
It's sort of like it's right in your face now.
Not only is Biden not going to be prosecuted for any of his stuff, but we're going to throw you Menendez because he didn't play along probably.
And then we're going to put the Clinton Foundation right back on the gravy train in the most obvious way.
As others have asked, why did this Clinton Foundation go quiet during the Trump administration?
Why weren't they just as active?
Well, the obvious reason is they didn't have the opportunity for corruption.
And as soon as the opportunity for corruption presented itself, well, it looks like they're pretty active again.
It's exactly what it looks like.
It's exactly what it looks like.
And nothing will happen because it's only people, you know, who are like really news nerds who even understand what I just said.
I mean, the general public has never heard of That there even is a Clinton Foundation, or that there ever was.
Or even that Biden has some potential legal risks.
The average person has no idea any of this is happening.
The average person has never heard of Bob Menendez, and never will.
The average voter has never heard of Bob Menendez, and never will.
Never!
They'll never know this happened.
No matter what happens with him, The average voter will never even know it.
Yeah.
So that's happening.
Over in Ukraine, if you're looking at the risk of nuclear war.
So the Ukrainians got some intelligence that there were a bunch of commanders meeting in this one headquarters in Crimea, I guess.
And it was the headquarters for the Black Sea Fleet, the Russian fleet.
And the Ukrainians sent a modern, I believe, American missile into that building and blew up some generals.
They may have actually killed or wounded the head of the fleet.
So some would say, uh-oh, escalation coming.
To which I say, no.
You know, if escalation was going to cause nuclear war, I think it would have happened by now.
I feel like we could escalate a lot.
As long as it's happening in that battlefield.
I don't think we could escalate on Russian territory much more than, you know, the drones.
But probably, probably we could escalate a lot without nuclear war.
I mean, I wouldn't take the chance.
I'm not, I'm not recommending it.
Seems pretty risky.
But in all likelihood, there could be plenty more escalation before Before there's a nuclear war.
So the thing is that Russia knows that one nuke is the end of Russia.
Would you say that's a fair statement?
One nuke?
One nuke is the end of Russia.
Now, they don't know that for sure, and I don't know that for sure, but that would be the calculation they'd be looking at.
So if you think that just because one building in Crimea blew up and some generals died, That Putin, who is completely rational as far as I can tell, you think he would just destroy Russia because Ukraine got one building with some generals in it?
I don't think there's any chance of that.
In fact, I can't even imagine what would make Putin want to die and kill everybody he knows and all of his family members, because that's what would happen if he used a nuke.
Well, here's another surprising thing.
Bill Gates came out publicly and said that climate change isn't going to kill you and that the news has gone too far in the alarmism.
Bill Gates.
Bill Gates.
Yeah, Bill Gates said the climate alarmism is out of control.
But he also says To be fair.
He says it's out of control in both directions.
He says the world acts like it's either going to end or there's no problem at all.
He says both of them are stupid.
Because what we have is a manageable problem that we need to pay attention to managing.
Now he might be a little bit wrong on that too, depending on who you're talking to.
But at least he's in the sensible range, would you agree?
Would you agree that that opinion is in the, even if you disagree with it, you could disagree with it, but it's certainly in the sensible domain of reasoned people.
Now, it could also be he has investments that, you know, push it in a certain direction.
He's big on fourth generation nuclear, which might be the entire solution to everything.
So he's got that going for him.
So, all right, let's do a review.
We have the Berkeley Law School learning that wokeness will destroy the Berkeley Law School.
Right?
And I'm sure they've noticed.
We see that Berkeley in general, their entire value of their degree will be destroyed by wokeness.
We've seen that even Governor Newsom cannot go along with taking the control away from parents and putting it with the state over the control of your own children.
Even Newsom couldn't go that far.
Bill Gates, as I just said, does not join the alarmists.
He says, let's shoot for this manageable middle, which is almost exactly my opinion.
That's pretty close to exactly my opinion.
And I would say it would be the opinion of maybe close to like Michael Schellenberger.
He's not that far off from Schellenberger.
They would have some differences.
But in both cases, they would say, let's manage it.
It's not imaginary, but we can manage it.
So that's good.
I think that we all have seen, at least the people paying attention, that the entire news business is fake.
Do you remember when Trump started saying the news was fake?
And you thought to yourself, well, some of it, a little bit.
I can see they don't like it, they're biased.
So when you say fake, you mean biased, right?
That's sort of what I thought.
But it turns out it's all fake.
It's actually just made up bullshit.
The political stuff is all made up.
And at the very least it's spun in a direction that makes it fake even if the details are right.
It's still spun in a way that turns correct things into fake things.
So the news is fake.
The major members of our government at the moment are Demonstrably, obviously, and observably corrupt.
Like in the worst possible way.
And that's all true.
So the news is completely fake.
The entire constellation of entities like the ADL and the SPLC and the think tanks, all fake.
All fake.
The cancellations, all political, meaning fake.
They're not being cancelled for any reason.
And you can tell that the cancellations are fake Because the entire right-leaning part of the country didn't cancel anybody.
At least in terms of the individuals.
People on the right boycott, you know, like Bud Light, but they're not canceling people, are they?
So news is wrong, the news is fake, the border is open because obviously somebody wants it open.
So we know that Basically the entire gears of the machine are obvious now.
We know that our politicians are selling their access.
We know the news is fake intentionally.
We know that the border is open intentionally because whoever's in charge could not be working for the interests of the United States.
And even the Ukraine war looks like a money grab.
I don't know if it is entirely.
But based on all the other things, it would be hard to conclude that war is anything but a money grab.
Is it a coincidence that Afghanistan wound down at the same time Ukraine wound up?
When Assange told us directly that the goal is not to ever have peace, the goal is to have permanent war, because that's how you transfer money away from one class of people to another.
He told us that directly.
And because of that, he will spend the rest of his life in jail.
Now, you disagree with that?
I think it's too much of an absolute, but it's directionally true.
All right.
So yeah, everything you thought was the case is true.
And I think we've reached the point We're letting it play as the best play.
I think we have to let every bad result that came from the left just play out to its maximum.
You want to see the migrants all over the city streets.
You want to see rampant crime.
You want to see people moving out because they can't stand it anymore.
You want to see people not going to college because it's corrupt.
You want to see people not watching the news because they know it's not true.
That's about where we are now.
Now, how do you feel about the elections integrity?
Given that we found out every part of our government and our news organizations are corrupt, what do you think about those elections?
Pretty good, huh?
All good?
Thank goodness the elections are all clean.
I don't know if you're watching, but the Rasmussen account is tracking all of the allegations of various election impropriety.
Now, I have my same opinion I've always had, which is the vast majority of all claims will be debunked.
So I don't know what's real and what isn't.
But there are quite a few interesting allegations floating around out there that you might not be aware of.
So if you're not aware of credible allegations that if true, it would rip the lid off the whole thing.
Yeah.
Here's something that's the most basic thing you think you would know.
Don't you think you would know if the election machines were attached to a Wi-Fi somewhere?
Don't you think that's the most basic thing you'd know?
Hey, were these machines attached to the internet the whole time?
And there's evidence that there's at least in one place the machines were connected and we didn't know until now.
So two years later we found out that at least in one place there's an allegation that machines were connected to the Wi-Fi.
How many other places could have been connected to a Wi-Fi that you didn't find out?
Who knows?
It could be all of them and you wouldn't even know.
Because nothing is true.
Like there's no news report you can count on.
There's no news outlet I would trust.
So who knows?
So I don't think Trump could possibly have been more right about more things.
And the way they're going to take him out is with another hoax.
If not, kinetically.
You know there's another hoax coming.
It's going to be a doozy.
Probably about, maybe some more about the secret documents that were at Mar-a-Lago.
Ask yourself this.
Why have we not heard any general description of the domain of information that was at Mar-a-Lago?
Why have we not heard One word about the domain.
We don't need to know the details.
We don't need to know the secrets themselves.
But wouldn't you like to know if any of them had to do with, say, a battle plan?
Or something that was current and useful to an enemy?
Wouldn't you like to know that?
How hard would it be to know that?
It wouldn't be hard.
You could take those documents, you could put them in a skiff, And you could say, all right, only the people who have the right clearance can see it, but that would include, you know, maybe a Thomas Massey, right?
If you let Thomas Massey look at it, and he says, oh God, there's some bad stuff in there, I'll believe it.
I'll believe it if he tells me, right?
But if you just send Adam Schiff in there, and he comes out and says, oh, it's nuclear secrets, I'm not gonna believe any of that, right?
But if you send both sides in, And at least one side says, okay, or let's say both sides say it's bad.
If you send Democrats and Republicans in and they both say, oh, shoot, this is bad, I'll believe that.
I will be willing to believe that.
But if the Republicans come out and say, you know, it's all sort of dated and generic stuff, and maybe it was over classified.
Well, then I'd probably believe that.
All right.
Both sides are against Trump?
Well, but no matter if both sides are against Trump, there are some people that I would believe if they told me they looked at a document and it was or was not bad.
That much I'd believe.
Because even people who are anti-Trump on the right wouldn't lie like that.
That's not exactly how somebody would lie, even if they're anti-Trump.
That would be too far.
That would be too far.
Because someday somebody would find out they lied, and that would be pretty bad.
Joe Blow.
Yeah.
Yes, Joe Blow.
The one thing that's important, so Joe Blow over there on YouTube, he wants to point out that Adam Schiff is Jewish.
So that explains everything.
How many people that I talked about today were Jewish?
Bob Menendez, is he Jewish?
The Clintons?
I mean, I just went through a whole litany of bad actors.
And I get one fucking guy who might have been to a temple once, and you're all on that.
Your pattern recognition is fucking broken.
All right.
I guess once a day I have to go off on the anti-Semites.
It's becoming my new pattern.
By the way, I thought it was pretty smart of Elon Musk to have met with Netanyahu because they seem to get along really well, wouldn't you say?
Would you agree that Netanyahu and Musk definitely seem like they have, you know, they're on the same page?
Now Netanyahu, of course, as one would expect, showed concern for any anti-Semitism on the platform, which I completely agree with, but Musk agrees with him.
Musk agrees with him that that should be something that should be against the terms of service and should be tamped down.
So consider the fact that the ADL, He thinks Musk is so bad that he must be out of business.
They actually tried to stop his business completely, put him out of business.
But the head of Israel is fine with him.
What does that tell you about the ADL?
It tells you the ADL is a hit group and certainly not representing Israel.
And Israel should be on the same team of representing Jewish people.
So that should tell you something about the ADL.
And that was pretty smart of Musk to meet with Netanyahu so publicly so that people could observe that at least Israel seems to be on the same page with Musk as much as possible.
All right.
All right.
Sydney Greenblatt is the poor man's Al Sharpton.
That joke always works.
All right.
You know, somebody said something about, well, I don't want to talk about that.
Never mind.
BB graduated MIT in three years.
Is that true?
Netanyahu is a MIT guy?
Really?
That would make sense.
He's one of the smartest people, one of the smartest leaders of all time.
I mean, his raw intellect, he's got a strong package.
All right.
Yeah, and Massey is an MIT alum.
I'll tell you, MIT does not produce dumb people.
All right.
All right.
He was in college when his brother was killed.
Is that true?
Netanyahu's brother was the only Israeli killed during the Entebbe raid?
That's actually true?
God, history is weird, isn't it?
It just doesn't feel like a coincidence like that could happen.
Let me tell you one like that.
The town I grew up in had a ski slope across the valley.
One day when I was a teen, you know, we would get discounts if you lived in the town.
You'd get like a cheap townie ticket.
So I went up there with my little wooden skis to ski.
And one day I was up there and one of the chairlifts broke.
So I think it was the cable broke.
And the chairs didn't go all the way to the ground.
They must have some kind of a fail-safe on them.
But they dipped drastically and then they swung back up like a bungee cord.
There was only one injury.
So there was only one person on the entire ski slope in that chairlift.
Only one injury.
It was the son of the owner of this ski slope, a friend of mine who badly broke his leg.
Because he was the only one who didn't have the seatbelt thing on.
Or whatever that bar is.
Everyone else maybe got some bruises.
But they were strapped in.
So they just had a ride.
But he actually got thrown out.
Because he wasn't strapped in.
So the only injury was the son of the owner of the ski slope.
And that always just blew my mind.
What are the odds of that?
That just seemed weird.
Yep.
Also true, I don't know if I ever told you this, I used to work at that same ski slope, and I may be wrong about this, but I think RFK Jr.'s 's mother had a house like right on the ski slope, you know sort of walk to the ski slope kind of thing, which means that he probably visited, which means there's a good chance That one of the days I worked at the Ski Slope making hamburgers.
I used to work as the fry, what did you call it, the fry cook?
So I worked in front of a grill when I was in high school.
And I'd be cooking hamburgers and making scrambled eggs and pancakes and stuff for people.
So yes, I'm an experienced cook.
Weird, I know you didn't expect that.
So there's a non-zero chance That sometime when I was a teenager, that RFK Jr.
was skiing, because his mother's house was right there.
They had more than one house.
And probably bought a hamburger.
And I probably handed it to him.
Just a weird, small world.
Now, I'm not saying for sure, but I did work a lot of weekends, and that's when he would have been there.
So if he were skiing, and if he got hungry, there was only one place to eat.
So I probably handed him You know, some mashed potatoes or something.
All right.
I burned the cheese.
All right.
That's all I got for you for today.
It's going to be an amazing day.
And I think all of you are going to be extra happy today.
