My new book Reframe Your Brain, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/3bwr9fm8
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, President Biden Poll, White Women Mental Disorders, Interpreting God, Weaponized Children, Gavin Newsom Basketball, MTG Censure Tlaib, Jake Tapper, Biden Crime Family, Marc Benioff, 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
Good morning everybody and welcome to the Highlight of Human Civilization.
You'll be happy to know that my emergency backup plan worked.
How does that work?
Well, as you know, every time I take out this little sheet that has the simultaneous separate on it, But do I know myself?
I do know myself.
And I know that one of these days, I'm going to mix up this sheet of paper that is important to have every day, and it's in my little drawer, with these other pieces of paper that I keep on my desk, and then I throw away when I'm done.
And eventually, knowing myself, I will throw away the important piece of paper, and then when the morning comes, I'll open the drawer and be very sad.
So you know what I did about a year ago?
I made two copies and I left them in the drawer because I know eventually I'm going to throw away the most important copy in the world.
So I'm down to one.
I must have thrown it away yesterday.
But if you'd like to enjoy this situation more than All that crap you just heard, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or gel, just dine in a canteen, joke or flask, a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid, I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine, you know, the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous.
You sip it happens now, go.
So good.
Okay.
Yeah, that's a good idea.
I'll take a picture of it right now.
Because I'll probably throw this one away as soon as we're done.
Good idea.
You know what's the other thing I can do?
If I lose this piece of paper?
Do you know what my backup plan is?
Do you know what my backup plan is?
That's right.
It's right on the back.
That's my...
I've got at least two backups going here at all times.
Alright, let's talk about the news.
Today I start with a tip for handling dumb trolls on social media.
Would anybody like another tip for handling dumb trolls on social media?
I find that this statement works in most situations where a troll engages you.
Have you noticed they like to ask a question?
And the question is like, so do you still beat your wife?
They're all questions where you can tell by the nature of the question that they're not real people who want to have a genuine conversation.
And often their question will be in the terms of what I call the absurd absolute.
The absurd absolute would be if you said, for example, there's one dog breed that statistically bites people more than another breed.
Some troll will come into your timeline and say, so, all dogs are dangerous, huh?
And you're thinking, what do I do with that?
So here's what you do with it.
You respond, ask better questions.
Now, I gave you a ridiculous example, so it's obvious that's a bad question.
But you would be amazed how many questions I get per day that fall into the category of, you need to ask a better question.
I think you could ask a better question than that.
And it's amazingly disarming, because when you force somebody to ask a better question, it forces them to either be absurd twice, which is sort of embarrassing, or to realize or admit that they're not a real person with a real question.
Try it.
It works.
I tried it again this morning.
Alright, well Rasmussen's asking some questions about what Americans think about the potential for war in the Middle East.
What they think about their commander-in-chief.
52% of people polled, these are likely voters, 52% that compared to most recent presidents, Biden is a weaker commander-in-chief.
So they only half think he's a weaker commander-in-chief than recently.
But how many would you guess?
Let's see if you can get this within four basis points.
I'm going to give you a little, because I know you're good at guessing, but you might, this one's a little bit harder.
So within four basis points, what percentage of people do you think in this poll said that Biden is a stronger commander in chief than most recent presidents?
Yeah, within four.
Within four.
Come on, I can't make this any easier.
Thank you.
It's 29, not 21.
If we're 21, I would have made a different hint.
But within four, that should have been the tip off.
That was 29.
29%.
Yes.
Well, 15% of the people said Biden's about the same as recent presidents as a military leader.
So 15% of people who answer polls can't tell if the president is alive or dead.
No, just kidding.
Kamala Harris confirmed in an interview that Joe Biden is very much alive.
I was trying to think to myself, what is the last time a vice president answered a major TV interview by stating unambiguously that the president is alive?
I feel like that's not necessary with most presidents.
Do you remember anybody ever saying, Is Trump alive?
I can't tell if he's alive.
Yes.
Yes.
He's always alive.
He looks alive every time you see him.
Joe Biden, he looks like maybe he's sort of in that gray area, if you know what I mean.
Half alive, half dead.
Sort of a Schrodinger's cat kind of a president.
You never really know if he's there or not.
No way to know.
I've noted this before, but it's going to lead into something.
Some study, according to Pew, 56% of young liberal white women have been diagnosed with mental disorders.
56% of the largest population of Democrat supporters.
Is that true?
That there are more single women?
Sort of the group that seems to wag the dog, anyway.
That the majority of Democrat voters in the most, I guess the group that probably moves the average the most, are literally mentally ill.
Now, why do we wake up every day and act like we're arguing politics?
We're not.
There's no politics involved.
We're actually talking with mentally ill people.
And we're pretending that they have an opinion, and it's worthy of debate, and we just disagree with you.
No, we don't.
Sometimes you're just crazy.
Sometimes that's the whole story.
But because we're used to thinking it's politics, we'll actually debate it like it's something that you should debate.
You don't debate insanity.
And by the way, 56% looks really low.
And I mean that.
It genuinely looks low.
What would you say is the percentage of young white women who have something that you would call a mental disorder?
I feel it's closer to 80%.
And I'm not saying that as an insult.
I think there's something about the world that makes a group of people who would have been largely totally sane, maybe, you know, 50 years ago, there is something about the world that's driving people crazy.
It's giving them mental problems.
So I wouldn't blame the people.
There's something about the world in which they live that changed to make people flip out.
So there's that.
So Bill Maher made an interesting point, which I will emphasize.
He said, He thinks that the new Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, is a religious fanatic.
So this is what Bill Maher says.
When you're this much of a religious fanatic, there's no room for real democracy.
Again, talking about the new Speaker of the House.
That's not what you believe in.
He said it today.
Look in the Bible.
That's my worldview.
Maher said, talking about Johnson.
And he said, quote, and I was reading about this horrible shooting in Maine, and you know, we don't know much about the guy yet, but apparently he heard voices.
And I thought, is he that different than Mike Johnson?
Whoa.
Whoa.
So in the Middle East, there's a big old war that might, might drag us into a world war.
But does that, Boiled down to two groups who have a different interpretation of what God is telling them.
True or not?
True or false, if you would remove that element, that two people have a different opinion of what God wants.
Now, is Bill Maher completely wrong when he says that in America we would hunt this guy down and put him in jail, and over there they get to be the bosses?
Is that unfair?
It's terribly unfair if you believe one of the religions is accurate or right.
Now, I'm not a believer, I'm just sort of an observer to the whole thing, but here's what I think.
I think that the Middle East is two mass hysterias which have overlapped and will spark a war.
So every time you think, oh, what's the logical thing to do?
Or why can't they all get together?
And don't they know it's better for the children?
And all that stuff.
There's nothing going on except two mass hysterias that overlapped.
If either of them were living apart from the other, like a long distance away, you'd probably be fine.
It's just that their opinions of reality Overlap.
In other words, they're incompatible.
So that means that we all have to die, I guess.
So what would you define as a mass hysteria?
I'll give you my working definition, which probably doesn't match the dictionary.
I believe that our little brains are not capable of understanding what's real.
Ever.
Like, I don't know that I'm really sitting here with a piece of paper in my hand.
I really don't.
You know, when you come right down to it, that's just the impression that's playing in my head.
So I don't say, it's not my belief that one of the religions is right and one of them's wrong.
I don't think that.
And I don't think they're both wrong in the normal sense of those words.
I think that all of us are wrong all the time.
And there's no option.
All of us are wrong about everything, all the time.
That's my impression of reality.
So, don't for a minute think that I'm the one with the accurate beliefs, and I'm saying that you don't have accurate beliefs.
That's not happening.
I'm saying that the human brain, of which I have one, is not the right tool for understanding the nature of reality.
It's just the wrong tool.
So if you think it's the right tool, you might find yourself in a bad situation.
So here's how I define a mass hysteria.
A mass hysteria is something that a bunch of people have come to believe, and here's the part that I'm adding that's different from a normal interpretation, that is bad for you.
So I'm going to add the bad for you.
There are plenty of mass hysterias or illusions which are not painful and don't have a risk.
So what do we call those?
I don't know.
A peaceful religion, maybe.
You might say, oh, it's the Buddhists.
If you were, let's say, a big old racist, you'd say, oh, it's the Mormons.
If you were a big old bigot, you'd say that.
You'd say, well, the Mormons have a belief system which does not seem to get them in any trouble, doesn't cause any wars, and it seems to make them happy.
They seem to live quite well within that system.
So what would you say of Mormonism?
Would you say it's true?
How would I know?
It's no more or less true than everything else.
So I used to be, when I was younger, I was quite judgy.
I'd say, how can you believe in that stuff?
Because I don't.
And then I'd realize, wait a minute.
What standard would I use to know that I see the truth?
How do I know?
How could I possibly know?
There's no logic, no facts, nothing I could research.
I have no mechanism to know that the Mormons are right or wrong.
Or any more right or wrong than Judaism, Buddhism, you name it.
Atheism.
Adheurism.
How the hell would I know what is true?
No way to know.
But here's what I can tell fairly easily.
There are some belief systems that cause pain and death.
And there's some that largely just people stay to themselves and just do their stuff and stay out of trouble.
Those are really different.
So rather than to say, this group believes something that's not true, and I believe something that's true, that's the wrong frame.
That frame gets you killed.
It would be better to say, I believe something that works.
It seems to work.
It creates a system and a standard, and I like it, and it feels right, and it feels, you know, my whole body likes it.
Kids are growing up well.
Keep doing it.
If that's working, keep doing it.
Don't look to me to tell you whether it's true or false.
What would I know?
How do I know?
I would never be able to know.
I can't help you on that.
So if it works, keep doing it.
That's about the best you can do.
You know, I often say that the only standard for truth is does it predict?
Does it predict?
So if you are raised as a Mormon and decide to raise your kid as a Mormon, could you predict that that would probably, you know, nothing's guaranteed, but probably produce a good citizen?
Yeah, probably.
Probably.
I would think so.
If you were a Muslim in America and you didn't have any extremist views, And you said, I think I'll raise my kid to be a Muslim too.
Is that a good strategy?
Probably, probably.
If your interpretation is, you know, let's get along with everybody, you know, yes, pretty good idea.
Christian, same thing, right?
And I don't know, Christian, Mormonism, how you want to overlap those, that's up to you.
But let's be very clear that there are only things that seem to work.
There are not things that are true or false.
We have belief.
And belief fills in the gaps for things that can't be known.
And if you've got a belief that's working, keep doing it.
And if it's causing you to spark World War III, maybe consider alternatives.
You don't necessarily have to change your belief, but you might need to change something to not die.
Here's what I recommend, but not really.
Sometimes I recommend things just so you have to think about it.
And here's one.
I recommend instead of having a big old fight in the Middle East that never ends and we're all going to die, I recommend that instead there's a televised summit in which the major religions put their leaders together and they figure out what God really wants.
Because I'm spending my tax money because two people I don't know, two groups of people that mostly I don't know.
I mean, I know some people from every community.
But mostly people I don't know can argue about what God has in mind.
Why am I spending money on that?
Well, it's because if they can't figure it out, I'm going to fucking die.
You know, as well as people that I care about would die.
So I don't want that.
But I'm not entirely comfortable with two people interpreting God differently, and I've got to pay them for it.
Oh, I'd better pay you, because you disagree about what God wants.
Not good enough.
Not good enough.
So we should make the leaders sit in a room televised, and they need to argue with each other about why their belief In their interpretation of what God wants, in general.
I mean in general, not just about, you know, Israel.
But a general comment.
Who has the right God?
Because it turns out that the Hamas has a really good argument.
I'd love to hear it.
I don't think it's going to convince me to go over to their side, but don't you want to see it in public?
Here's what that would turn into.
Here's my book.
And God wrote it, basically, indirectly.
So this is true.
And then the other side says, I will kill you.
Here's my book that somebody wrote that says it's true.
And then you have maybe 10 other religions, too.
And they all say, well, I got a book.
Here's my Book of Mormon.
Anybody?
Anybody?
Came directly from God.
And then you just go down the line, and you find out, while it's televised, that everybody's argument for their version of God is the same.
That's it.
That's how you deprogram the world.
The way you deprogram the world is to have everybody hold up their book and say, this is my proof.
Because I got a book and it came from God.
That's it.
And everybody's a tie.
You find it's like a ten-way tie.
Wait, wait, you've got a holy book too?
Where'd that holy book come from?
God?
Duh.
You know, I mean indirectly.
He told somebody to write it, but basically it's God.
Now, here's the best you could do with that outcome.
The best you could do is teach people there's a difference between what you know and what you believe.
And that if you're dying for what you believe, instead of what you know, you're doing it wrong.
You should die for what you know.
Like, for example, if I don't have food, I will die.
You know that you need to grow food.
That's something you know.
Or at least it's predictable, as that quality of prediction.
If I don't grow food and I don't have food, will I live?
Well, the prediction is going to be pretty clean.
So, you need to make a clear distinction between what can be predicted, which is as close as you can get to the truth, and what can't.
You know what can't be predicted?
The outcome of anything in the Middle East.
I mean, you could say... Israel would do great damage to Gaza, control it if they want to.
Yeah, but then what happens?
Nothing?
You don't think there's any reaction?
You don't think Hezbollah will make a move?
Or if they don't make a move now, won't they build up resources so they can make a move later?
There's no way to know how it turns out.
So if one of you has the right God, you better start making a prediction.
And here's what I would ask them.
Here's the deal.
The only way we can tell what's true-ish is prediction.
So each of you hold up your book, and let's get a picture of you holding up your book.
That's your argument for why your god is the right one.
Now make a prediction.
Tell us what you think the Middle East will look like in five years or whatever.
And see which one can predict.
Now, it might be easier for the Hamas to predict, because they'll say, in 10 years, Israel will still be abusing us and we'll still be fighting for our rights.
Well, they might be right about that.
At least the fighting for the rights part.
The abuse part?
Well, we don't have free speech.
We can't talk about that.
If we had free speech, we'd have a conversation that would look like this.
Hey, this side does some things that, by any objective standard, A reasonable person would say, hmm, that feels a little like not too cool.
But then the other side does some things that are also not too cool.
And they're not equal.
They're not doing the same things exactly.
But maybe there's some not cool things on both sides.
Maybe if you fix the not cool things, you could all live in peace.
Say the stupidest people in the world.
By the way, what's the stupidest thing you could ever believe about Israel and Hamas?
Or even the Palestinians.
That they can live in peace.
The children on one side have been weaponized to believe that they have to grow up and kill as many Israelis as they can.
What are you going to do with that?
Are you going to work it out?
Do a political agreement?
No.
The only way any of this could ever end without complete disaster They'd all decide they believe in the same God.
That's not going to happen.
Or they come to understand there's a difference between what's real, facts they can predict, and what is a belief.
And the belief is also real, but it's a different kind of real.
In other words, you can really believe it and it becomes the reality that you experience.
But It needs to be in its own category, not in the category where you have to kill each other.
So I asked this question.
So anyway, that's a real suggestion, is that there should be a televised summit in which the religious people of all types argue which god is the right one.
We definitely should really, really do that.
Now, would anybody agree to do it?
Could you get the Pope to pick a champion?
For example?
I mean, Catholicism just being one branch of Christianity.
But could you get them to pick a champion?
I think no.
I think probably not.
Do you know why?
Do you know why none of the major religious groups would participate in a discussion of what is real?
Well, it should be pretty obvious.
Do I have to explain it?
Because I know they can't defend it.
The whole point of belief is that it's the part that you can't defend with the normal kind of defense that you defend things, as in a court case.
So if you can't work it out that way, and I expect nobody will be reasonable enough to do that.
It's the only way you could deprogram enough people.
But what would you do about the fact that the children And I'll take a fact check on this.
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.
And I'll definitely apologize and change my opinion.
But isn't it true that they're being taught from birth, practically, that they need to destroy Israel and kill all the Jews?
I'm not making that up, am I?
Now, if the children are weaponized, I'm going to ask you the only question that nobody else can say.
I'm going to say something out loud that I don't think anybody else could say, honestly, in the whole world.
Is it moral to kill children who've been weaponized to grow up and kill you and your family?
Is it moral to intentionally kill children who you know to have been weaponized to grow up and kill you and your family?
I'm looking at your answers.
I see lots of no's.
Do you see some yeses?
Now, I'm not saying that it's legal.
Legal is different from immoral, right?
There are some things, you know, because you could argue that even self-defense is immoral if you were a real stickler for it.
Because it takes a life.
Well, here's the thing.
That's the question you're gonna have to decide.
You're gonna have to decide that.
Because if you want to take a side with You know, Israel versus Hamas, the only way either of them would prevail is by killing the children on the other side, along with everybody else.
Now, you could kill them, or you could put them in camps, or you could try to spread them out so they don't cause too much trouble because they're all spread out, but nobody wants them.
So if you can't take them and put them in other friendly countries that will Maybe help re-educate them in a less dangerous way.
If that's not an option, what are you going to do?
Put them in another outdoor jail?
Or kill them?
It looks like the option is both.
Now, and you say to yourself, my God, my God, that's terrible.
How can Israel intentionally kill civilians, especially including that many children?
It's like half children, 50% of Gaza's children.
I don't know if that's true in the bombing areas.
Might be more adults percentage in the bombing areas if they were smart enough to get the kids out.
But in any scenario, Either Israel does nothing and they watch their own children being slaughtered again.
Can they do that?
Of course they can't.
They cannot do that.
Or they kill all of the children of the Palestinians, which they can't do.
There's no way that they're going to do that.
They kill a bunch of people and put the rest in prison camps for the rest of time and just keep them abused.
What's their best play?
Unfortunately, that's their best play.
Do you have a better idea?
Let's talk about it again.
You either let the people in Gaza get diversified into other countries that are friendly and want them and You know, maybe they can deprogram them, or they're not too dangerous, you know, if they're not grouped together.
That doesn't seem to be an option.
Nobody wants them.
Do you know why nobody wants them?
Because it'd be too dangerous.
The children are weaponized.
Who wants a bunch of weaponized children in their boundaries?
So, it's time to grow up, people.
Look at the options you really have.
The options you really have Or to have a summit and you work it out.
Seems impossible.
Distribute people to other countries.
Not going to work.
Do sort of nothing and put Gaza back together and rebuild it.
Kids are weaponized.
They come back and kill your children.
That doesn't work.
Never going to happen.
Or Israel goes really, really tough.
And kills a bunch of people in Gaza who don't want to leave the bombing area, which is not entirely their choice, but feels like it a little bit.
And puts them in camps and just leaves them there until they stop reproducing.
If that happens.
I mean, I imagine they would still reproduce anyway.
I mean, you would almost have to spike the water with birth control.
You would have to almost poison the prisoners with birth control so they couldn't reproduce.
What else would work?
So basically, every path is a war crime.
Am I right?
Every path that's available is a war crime, in my opinion.
Now, if you're saying, Scott, are you criticizing Israel?
No.
No, I'm not.
Because if you put me in their position, I'd be doing all kinds of war crimes.
I'd be war criming all over the place.
And I wouldn't even feel a little bit bad about it.
Honestly, I wouldn't.
Put yourself in their situation.
You'd be war criming like crazy if it happened to you.
You know you would.
So I'm not going to judge them for doing exactly what I would do in that situation.
How do you judge that?
How can I be judgy about exactly what I would do in that situation?
Can't.
Not be honest about it.
So I'm not going to get on Israel, the situation is the situation, but I'm not going to judge anybody for a war crime when they have no choice.
And if you think I'm going to judge Israel if they wipe down every child in the Palestinian organization who had been weaponized to grow up and kill them, I would say that would be like the worst thing I ever heard of in my entire life.
And justified.
And justified.
Morally.
Not legally.
I mean, it would be a war crime of all war crimes.
So, I mean, somebody would probably go to jail for that.
But you tell me what's the alternative.
See, the big question that everybody wants to ignore is that the children have been weaponized.
As soon as you accept that little truth, all of your options go away.
You only have war crime or war crime.
You don't have other options.
So I'm definitely not going to be judging Israel for whatever the hell they do.
Because when your only choices are bad, you've got to make a bad choice.
You just have to wish that you're not the one who has to make that decision.
So is that the most raw opinion you've heard on this?
I bet that's the closest to an honest opinion you've ever heard on the topic.
Would you agree?
Because everybody wants to ignore the fact that the children have been weaponized.
As soon as you accept that truth, and by the way, if that's not true, if it turns out that 10% of them have been weaponized but the other 90% are perfectly salvageable, then you should do everything you can do to salvage as many kids as you can.
But if you have no choices, don't act like you do.
Most of our opinions on the war are dumbfuck opinions.
A dumbfuck opinion is where you ignore the cost of whatever your awesome idea is.
All right, here's an example.
I think they should have a ceasefire.
Come on.
Come on.
Are you even trying?
Are you even trying to understand the situation?
Ceasefire is the worst idea ever.
No, that's not.
And by the way, it's not going to happen.
So there's no chance of it happening.
So, why can't you be honest?
There's nothing that Israel can do except kill a bunch of men, women, and children and depopulate the area and control it for the rest of time.
That's the only thing they can do.
If they had two choices, I'd be talking about that other choice.
Did somebody want to make a suggestion?
What's your suggestion?
What's the other?
Truce.
Seriously?
A truce?
No, truce just means they rebuild and slaughter your family.
Now, give me a real suggestion.
Any real suggestion that doesn't involve essentially depopulating Gaza and Israel owning it forever.
There is none.
If anybody had an idea, they would have mentioned it by now.
Nobody has an idea.
This is a battle to the death.
And it wasn't my choice.
I did not suggest anybody have a battle to the death.
But here's one thing I do think.
If the reason your baby is going to get slaughtered is because there's a guy in a nice religious outfit who thinks that's the way it should go, then maybe those fucking guys should be killing each other.
Right?
Maybe you take the leaders who believe this shit and put them in one room and say, hey, fight it out.
Whoever's left will follow you.
Why are you killing our children?
And I will say, as a citizen of Earth, as a citizen of Earth, the Palestinian children are my children and the Jewish children are my children as well.
Why are you killing my children?
They didn't come up with any of these ideas.
The children are not the creators of the beliefs that are causing all the problems, it's the leaders.
So put the leaders in a room and have them fight it out.
Otherwise, the rest of us should just live our lives.
Because if you've got a leader that's telling you to go to war against your neighbor, and you haven't exhausted other possibilities, it's not exactly your best leader.
But once you get to this point, all of your options are exhausted, and you end up doing exactly what Israel is doing.
So, will it be a war crime?
I would say, of course.
Of course it will.
Did they have a choice?
Nope.
And I would also say that every war is a war crime.
They all are.
Did I ever tell you this?
I probably have told you this story before.
I'll give you the quick version.
There was once a veteran of World War II, who has now passed away, who in his final years, I asked him, like to really talk about his war experience, because apparently he had never had.
So even people who had known him all his life, even family members, had never heard him talk about his World War II experience, because he saw a lot of action.
So I asked him about it, and I asked this question.
I said, seriously, in World War II, he was actually in Europe, moving toward Germany, I said, did they take prisoners?
Like, really?
Because it would seem like it would be such a pain in the ass to take a prisoner if you're trying to march anywhere to attack anything.
Like the prisoners would take too much resources.
So don't you just sort of, didn't you just sort of shoot them in World War II?
And then since Hitler lost, all the people who were against Hitler just don't tell that story.
They just don't mention that basically captured people were just executed.
So that's what I thought happened.
But here's what the veteran told me.
He said, no, no, we took prisoners.
And then he told me a story about a Nazi officer that they'd captured, and how after they disarmed him, they had a conversation with him, and he asked for a cigarette, and they gave him a light, and it was all just professional.
And then I asked him a few more questions.
He got comfortable.
And then he told me about a situation in which they came upon a lot of dead Americans.
I won't give you any more detail than that.
But a lot of Americans who had been their own prisoners that they had machine gunned.
So the Germans had machine gunned a bunch of captured prisoners.
And The veteran who's now passed away was telling me this.
He said after that, after they'd captured all the Germans who were involved in executing them, he said to me, that day we didn't take prisoners.
That's the most chilling thing I've ever heard in my life.
He said that day we didn't take prisoners.
Now that's war.
That's what war is.
If you think that there's ever been a war that wasn't a rolling war crime, then I don't think you know how anything works in the real world.
Not just that you don't know how war works, you don't know how anything works.
I mean, most of corporations in corporate America are, you know, rolling crime.
You just get used to it.
They're either monopolies or they're suppressing business somewhere.
I mean, basically we live in a world in which every large effort or organization is largely or completely corrupt.
It's just everything.
So you think that in a time of war, it doesn't immediately become just a rolling war crime?
Of course it does.
Every war, every time.
There's no way that's not gonna happen.
So, you know, talking about... Norm says, when did you become your own enemy, Scott?
Hey, Norm?
Ask better questions.
Did you see that?
Did you see how well that worked?
That was a perfect example.
Scott, when did you become your own worst enemy?
Norm?
Ask better questions.
You can do it.
All right.
So there's a yet another study that says alcohol is bad for you in every quantity.
Now this feels like a repeat story because it's not the first time a new study came out that said alcohol is bad for you in any quantity.
But I just add this to the category of science.
Should have asked me.
Should have asked me.
There are quite a few things that apparently I knew before science.
How did I know that alcohol was bad at any amount?
Because I just asked myself, why doesn't anybody tell me who funded the story that said it's good for you?
They always leave that out.
So I knew it was bullshit for 30 years.
But the rest of you are catching up, I guess.
Did you see the video of Gavin Newsom trying to play basketball in China?
I've replayed it a hundred times.
I can't stop looking at it.
So here's the setup.
So Gavin Newsom is sort of acting presidential and he visits China and he talks to Xi and he's doing some political things.
And he ends up on a basketball court with it looked like maybe nine-year-olds or I'm gonna say ten or eleven-year-olds maybe.
Playing basketball and he's in his dress clothes with his dress shoes and he's gonna, you know, as a sort of a something to create a little news over there, he's gonna do a little one-on-one with the kids and, you know, maybe join in the game.
So he starts dribbling the ball and because his feet are slippery, he plows into a kid and just like demolishes the kid and falls on top of him.
Now, because Newsom goes down like a pile of sticks, I can't stop looking at it because nobody got hurt.
The child was fine.
I wouldn't be laughing if the child was hurt.
And I wouldn't be laughing if he was hurt either.
But they didn't get hurt.
But it was the funniest collision on camera you've ever seen.
And then Gavin Has to think quickly to make it not look ridiculous.
So he grabs the kid, you know, and like rolls him around a little bit, and then he spanks him on his bottom, you know, which I thought was a little sus.
It wouldn't have been how I would have gone.
I don't think I would have held him and spanked him, but that's just me.
But he did it playfully, and he did it like, he did it like a dad who's actually raised children.
No, he didn't look like a pedo.
He looked like a dad who knew how to roughhouse with boys.
So he sort of recovered a little bit because he made a joke about himself and the kid was okay and they had a good laugh about it.
And it did get a lot of attention.
It's funny how that could go so wrong.
The only thing I'll remember about his trip to China is how he almost killed a Chinese child.
That's the only thing I'm going to remember.
Now, here's your persuasion tip again.
Visual beats everything else.
So if there's a story where, I don't know, maybe there was, where Newsom said some policy thing to President Xi, I hope he didn't.
But if he did, I don't know, I'm not going to remember it.
It was probably some generic thing like, we should work together to make the world a better place.
I'm not going to remember that.
But I'm going to remember he almost killed a Chinese kid on the basketball court.
I'm going to give Marjorie Taylor Greene the win.
She filed a censure resolution against Representative Rashida Tlaib for inciting an insurrection.
MTG!
For the win!
But that's not the funny part.
Now obviously Rashida Tlaib did not incite an insurrection.
Can we say that as clearly as possible?
Every one of us knows that nobody believes, not Marjorie Taylor Greene, not anybody, Nobody believes that Tlaib incited an insurrection.
She may have been part of the inspiration or participant for a protest.
Just a protest.
But that's what most people would say about January 6th, unless they were in the bag for the Democrats.
They'd say, well, that was a protest.
But of course, the president at the time, Trump, got impeached for something they called an insurrection.
So the funniest part is Jake Tapper reacting with very visible disgust that she doesn't know the difference between January 6th and this, you know, little protest.
And he's like, my God, how could she be so terrible and dumb and stupid and political?
No, he didn't say those exact words, but it came off like that.
And I thought to myself, Does he not know this is a prank?
He was treating it like it was news.
Seriously?
He really didn't know?
He didn't know that that was just to make him do what he did?
She wanted him to go on television and explain how one was an insurrection but the other one wasn't.
And she got it.
She got CNN to argue about one of them being an insurrection and the other one not.
So that the rest of the world could say, you know what?
They kind of look, in many ways, but not every way, similar.
And Jake Tapper would say, but one was intended to overthrow the United States.
No, it wasn't.
No, it wasn't.
That's just something CNN reported.
There was nobody in the crowd.
Well, let me take it back.
There were probably a handful of people who thought, maybe this will lead to a revolution or something.
But most of the people just wanted to delay the count to make sure it had been counted correctly, which is something Democrats will never hear.
By the way, Democrats don't even know that.
Did you know that?
Ask a Democrat.
If the intention was to delay the certification just so they had, I don't know, 48 hours or whatever it was to check something they thought needed to be checked.
That's it.
It was just a specific delay to do a specific thing to make sure that the outcome was the correct outcome.
Now, how is that different in badness than a bunch of people trespassing in a public building and complaining about policy?
They're kind of the same.
They are kind of the same.
And that, of course, is Marjorie Taylor Greene's point, I assume.
So I've never seen a more complete win than what MTG got by Tapper's reaction there.
All right.
I feel like this is just old news, but do you all know that there's no question That the Biden crime family was taking money for influence, including when Joe Biden was vice president.
Do I have to go over the newest explanation of how it's all documented?
It's in the emails.
He's admitted it in emails that he gives his money to Joe.
And now there's that $200,000 payment, which I think was shown as a loan repayment, but there's nothing in the banking records to suggest it was a loan in the first place.
But there was a loan repayment.
Do you know why it was a loan repayment?
Because that would be non-taxable, right?
If you're just paying back the principal of a loan.
It's a non-taxable event.
Yeah, so it's just basically a way to cheat on your taxes.
So, other people would go to jail for that.
If you gave somebody $200,000 because you sold some influence, and you told them to mark it down when they received it as loan repayment, but you knew it was not a loan repayment, you go to jail for that.
Don't you?
I mean, I think that's not even a fine.
I think that's not one of those where, oh, you interpreted the IRS differently, so we'll give you a penalty, but we're good after that.
That's not that.
If you intentionally call it a loan, because that's the way to avoid paying taxes, and you're a sophisticated player, so you know exactly what you're doing, as the Bidens are, that's just a flat-out crime.
It's a felony, isn't it?
Wouldn't it be above the dollar amount for a felony?
Am I wrong about that?
It doesn't matter that it's a tax-related thing.
It's still a felony, right?
Because it's above the, I don't know, $5,000 or whatever.
All right.
I think it's a felony.
It's a felony that's well documented.
Now, if this were Trump, you don't think he'd be indicted for this already?
How hard would it be to get an indictment if you showed that somebody paid $200,000 to somebody, there was a trail in email saying that he gives half of his money to his father and he's mad about it, you know that he's selling influence, they all admit that, that's not in question, and you know that the $200,000 was paid, but there's no record that a loan was ever part of it.
You don't think that would be enough to indict Trump?
Now, first they would ask, maybe before they even took it to a grand jury, first they would ask, can you show that there was a loan?
Because if you can show there was a loan, then there's nothing to talk about.
Do you think they could?
I don't think so.
I think if they said, can you prove there was a loan?
Remember, Comer, the Republican, has their bank records.
So if it's not in the bank records going back X number of years, was it ever there?
So certainly Trump would have been indicted and if he could produce evidence that had been alone then, you know, the process would probably stop.
But it wouldn't stop him from getting indicted, would it?
So the two-tiered justice system Is in effect, and what do they say about Trump if you're a Democrat?
He's not above the law.
They say Trump is not above the law.
Now, if you believe that they accuse you of everything they're doing, wouldn't it suggest that they think they're above the law?
Well, they are and they act like it.
All right.
You know, there's this story about this Francis Fukuyama in the Stanford censorship group, there's some kind of Stanford censorship thing, and Mike Benz is talking about him, but the part of this story that just It's just amazing.
It's just jaw-dropping.
It's not that the United States have these fact-checkers and disinformation people.
We know that.
But that they said out loud, quote, I think in one of his speeches, this Francis Fukuyama may have said, one of the chief threats to contemporary democracy is basically misinformation.
And they blamed it for the rise of Donald Trump.
Do you think that misinformation is the reason that Trump became president?
Well, yes it is.
It was their misinformation.
It was because when he called out fake news, he was right about it.
That was the problem.
So, it's kind of amazing, and I wonder if people like Francis Fukuyama, do you think that they're aware?
Do you think that he's aware?
That what he's really doing is trying to stop real information so that their own fake information can rule the day?
Do you think he knows it?
Or do you think he is part of the mass hysteria that Trump is bad and that sort of drives every other impression you have?
To me, I'm going to say mass hysteria.
Because it seems like something you wouldn't say out loud if you were self-aware.
If you were aware that it was just an op, and you were just trying to suppress the other team, I don't know if you'd word it this way.
Just the wording suggests he actually is in some kind of mass hysteria.
Anyway.
Speaking of mass hysterias, Goldie Hawn has announced that when she was 20 years old, An alien, some three extraterrestrials approached her when she was in her car and she interacted with them and one of them touched her face.
So her face was touched by an alien.
You know, if I were a bad person, I would make a joke right now.
But I'm gonna have to do an impression of a bad person so you don't blame me.
So I'm gonna have Dale read this same story, but Dale's kind of a jerk.
Kind of a jerk.
Here's something, he'd read it.
Oh, I don't have my Dale.
I can't do it.
Here we go.
Well, there's a story about Goldie Hawn.
She said when she was 20 years old, an alien once touched her face.
I guess that's what happened.
Dale, you freaking asshole.
Don't make fun of people.
All right.
Mark Benioff, who you might know as the founder and multi-billionaire who founded Salesforce and his big headquarters in San Francisco.
And he's probably not feeling too happy that he put his big headquarters in San Francisco because it turned into a toilet.
But today he wrote a very long piece on the X platform about the need to refund the police, not defund them, refund them.
And I wonder, do you think that Benioff, who has been very active, I think, funding and being pro-Democrat, do you think he knows he funded the wrong team?
Now he might hate Republicans even more, so maybe it seems like the right team.
But I've said before, I spent, I don't know, 20 minutes or so talking to Mark Benioff once before an event, and I found him one of the most genuine and interesting people you'll ever meet in your life.
When he talks about their company gives a percentage of their income to good causes and stuff, what I observed was the real thing.
He genuinely is active and cares about making the world better with his money and with your money and the company's money.
He's very much about sharing and making everybody better off.
So he's a good person.
He's got to know that he funded some bad people, and he got a really bad outcome.
And I just wonder, how much does that change your future activities?
Do you think you'll give as much to the Democrats as he has before?
Or could you imagine that he would fund... Could you imagine... Oh, I can imagine this.
I could imagine somebody like Benioff, because again, real smart, Very effective, capable, you know, like a real guy.
Somebody you would like.
Could you imagine that he would fund Republicans for the local offices and Democrats for national office?
I could see that.
No, I could see that.
Because obviously Democrats are not good on crime.
So if he could find a Republican who would fix crime in his city, But he had a president who gave him what he wanted, let's say with health care, etc.
That would still be a pretty good outcome, I would think.
But it just makes me wonder, what kind of outcome makes you change what you're doing?
Do you think this is enough?
That the city is destroyed and the other major cities are destroyed?
Is that enough to make you change your activities?
Most people are saying no, and I agree with you.
But, That would be for regular people.
For regular people, they just keep doing what they're doing no matter whether it works or not.
But I think Mark Benioff is not like regular people.
So you might be surprised.
He might surprise you with something that's not just team play.
Because he knows what works and what doesn't.
And he's not shy.
So you might see some movement there that could be interesting.
All right.
I would like to, since I have, I just have another minute here.
I thought I'd do one thing.
Yeah, we've got two minutes.
Would it be okay if I use the following two minutes to solve the mystery of gravity?
What gravity is?
Because Einstein, he was a little confused.
The physicists are working on this string theory.
I don't know.
I just thought I'd solve that for you before I go.
All right.
Here's what I think.
Number one, I think that this thing we experience as reality has a pulse.
That is to say that I believe everything disappears and then reappears like a pulse.
Gone, back, gone, back.
Now at the quantum world we know that that happens.
You know, quantum things pop in and out of existence.
But I'm suggesting that everything pops in and out of existence.
When it's gone, You don't note it because you're gone.
When it's here, you note it.
And the reason I say that it pulses is that it seems absurd to imagine that time is a smooth, consistent thing, because it would mean that we would at some point occupy every space, an infinite number of spaces between any two destinations.
So there's an absurdity to imagine that everything's connected smoothly.
But there's no absurdity, I don't know the mechanism for it, but there's no absurdity to imagining that we're blinking in and out of existence.
Now, when you blink back into existence, I hypothesize, you blink back into the probable place that you would be.
So when you come back into existence, it's not the same place, it's the next position.
Very much like if you've seen a flip book for comics, where you draw a little comic on a bunch of pieces of paper, and you flip through them quickly, and it looks like they're moving.
So imagine that when you pop back into existence, you're just a little bit moved.
But the determination of where you've moved to is based on probability alone.
Just probability.
So if there was as much probability that your hand would go from here to here, as it was that you would burst into flames, then sometimes you would burst into flames.
But that doesn't happen.
So there's some things that are clearly more likely than other things.
And you're more likely to reappear into that more likely thing.
So here's what gravity is.
Gravity is That around things that we, in this reality, it looks like they're dense, is really where there's the most probability.
In other words, there are more possibilities that the next time you pop into existence, you're going to pop into an existence that's closer to the sun.
Because there are simply more places there.
There are fewer places behind you.
There are places and it's possible.
So at any moment you might be slightly further from the sun, but you wouldn't notice it because the very next moment you'd pop out of existence and the probability would kick in and you're probably going to pop in closer to the sun.
As you get closer and closer to the sun, the probability is even thicker that In front of you, it's more likely you'll pop into existence than behind you.
And so that thing that Einstein describes as bent to space, Is nothing but going from thin probability fields to thicker ones.
And your impression is of gravity.
Or, when you do it mathematically, it looks like it's bent space.
But all it is, is pulsing out of existence and into existence in the most likely place, statistically, that you're likely to reappear.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, solves all the problems of physics.
I will be expecting the Nobel Prize in both physics and peace.
For all of my good work.
I'm wondering if maybe this time it'd be easier if anybody from the Nobel Committee is listening.
Could you just combine those two?
Because I don't want to make two trips.
Do you have to go to Stockholm or something?
Like I want to go to Stockholm twice.
Once would be plenty.
If you could, and I'm not saying that you're considering me for both.
I'm not saying.
But if you did, which would be totally wise, you should combine them into something called Science Peace.
So it'd be like the Nobel Science Peace Award.
Something like that.
So I'll take it.
All right.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the end of the most informative Live stream.
If you've ever seen your life, possibly the best experience you've ever had.
We need that religious summit.
Get those religious people to tell us, what does God really mean?
So we know whose team to be on.
Let's get that going.
All right.
YouTube, I'm going to say bye for now and go talk to the locals people, because they're awesome.
