Episode 2312 12/04/23 CWSA: Let's Decide Who Is The Tyrant And Who Is The Defender Of Democracy
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, Date Cost, Bill Maher, MK-Ultra, Klaus Schwab, WEF, Bill Ackman, Harvard Anti-Semitism, Claudine Gay, Dana Bash, Trump Dictator Accusations, President Trump, Tucker Carlson, Jared Kushner, Governor Abbott, Elon Musk, Cenk Uygur, Thomas Sowell, Liz Cheney, TikTok Ban, Robert Kagan, Victoria Nuland, Mike Benz, Hamas Death Count, 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.
And if you'd like this experience to go up to levels that nobody can even understand with their puny human brains, all you need is A cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of dopamine.
You know, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go.
Well, if you don't mind, I've got a little technical problem, it looks like, with the locals' platform.
I'm going to see if turning them sideways makes the comments work.
Nope.
Okay, that didn't work.
But I'm sure they're there and those comments will be fine after a while.
Locals, just imagine.
You'll see if I can, well, all right, I'm sure it'll correct itself.
But in the meantime, how about some of that news?
Okay, it's really bothering me that the comments are frozen, so I'm going to see if I can call up your comments on my other device.
We'll see if it's device-dependent or not.
This will only take me one second.
Yes, device is device dependent.
So I can see your comments on this device.
You're all good.
All right.
I saw that people are dating less because of money.
And there was a big poll that said people are spending much less.
And the average cost of a date, people say, should be around $189.
Does that sound right?
The average cost of a date?
I guess there's a difference between what women think and what men think.
But somewhere in that 200 to 300 range seems to be popular.
But people are dating less and less.
Now, is it my imagination or is every single element of society seemingly now completely bent on making us not reproduce?
All right, so we got it's too expensive to date.
It's too expensive to get married and have kids.
Our testosterone levels are dropping.
Women are going to accuse you of rape.
Our marriage system discourages marriage for men because, you know, they'll take your money and your kids and whatever.
We've got the, you know, the LGBTQ We've got TikTok telling people to be something other than traditional family.
Tell me, is it true that literally everything, that literally everything is just about keeping us from reproducing?
And then we've got immigration that's sort of taking up the slack.
Here's a question for you.
If American reproduction was high, and the average family were having three or four kids, would we have immigration?
Or are they actually connected?
And that the suppression of natural reproduction, is it in any way connected to immigration?
I hope not.
Everything's connected, you say.
Seems connected.
I'm going to put...
All right.
I don't know why I'm getting comments on locals on my phone just fine, but not on my iPad.
I don't know what that's about.
Let's see if I can put you here and I can see it.
I'm going to fix this one way or another.
This is called a kluge.
Do you know what a kluge is?
It's where you need a A tissue box to put your second device because your first device is not working.
You know what's the worst thing about that?
Does anybody have this issue?
The biggest problem with the iPhone, and I actually hate Apple for this, I hate that.
It's the same with the iPads.
That the case is slippery and you always want to prop it up on something.
And it does this.
It just slides.
Are you telling me that nobody thought of putting a little rubber on one side so that it doesn't slide on the table surface?
Am I right?
It's like this gigantic FU that the phone is slippery and it breaks.
Who would make a slippery phone?
I mean, just think about that.
Something that's meant to hold in your hand, and they've designed it to be slippery.
Or something that you set up on a surface and then made it slippery.
Not just slippery, but like super slippery.
Like extra slippery.
Oh well.
Anyway, on Club Random, which is Bill Maher's extra show, I guess he had Roseanne on, and I thought this was like I thought it was a deep fake, because what I'm going to tell you, I didn't think was possible.
But Bill Maher had never heard of MK Ultra, Klaus Schwab, or the WEF.
Roseanne brought up all of those things, and he said, what are those things?
Now, maybe because they were, you know, inebriated, maybe he just forgot.
Is that possible?
But you know, here are some of the other things he didn't know until recently.
Until recently, he didn't know that the Find People hoax was a hoax.
He seems to know it now, but he didn't know that for, I think, years.
And I think he still believes in the bleach drinking hoax, or maybe the injecting disinfectants hoax.
Now, I've heard him say, also on Club Random, that he doesn't sample many sources of news.
Is that the whole problem?
Do you think the whole problem that we imagine is a left versus right is just that one side doesn't see the news?
Is that all that's happening?
One side just doesn't watch news.
It feels like it.
It feels like that's all that's happening.
I would love to have a show where you bring in people from both sides and somebody tells them the news that they've missed.
Did you know there was a thing called MKUltra?
What?
All right, let me test my audience.
How many of you do not know what MKUltra is?
Go.
How many do not know what MKUltra is or was?
Oh, there's some people who do not.
Oh.
Oh, interesting.
Quite a few people do not.
MKUltra, let's see if I get it right, was a CIA program to brainwash Americans.
Is that right?
That's a reasonable explanation?
It's no longer in place.
Well, let's just say a thing by that name is no longer in place.
But you didn't know that?
You didn't know that the CIA, it's a documented, well understood thing, that they had a program Do brainwash Americans through the and they would use the media to do it.
It's old.
It was canceled.
But it's obviously back in some form.
So we're currently under a CIA brainwashing umbrella.
Obviously, yeah, I would say that fits into the category of obviously.
Right.
So I don't know.
I'm not even going to show you a source or try to try to Better argue it.
It's like really, really obvious if you pay attention to the news.
So, yeah, a lot of the things you see are just CIA ops.
They're not organic news in any sense.
You didn't know that?
I want to test this again.
Maybe it was just the name of it that you were not familiar with.
How many of you are not familiar with the fact that it's documented history?
Nobody disagrees.
There's no historian on the left or the right who would disagree with us.
This is a well-established fact that the CIA had a program to brainwash Americans.
So how many of you didn't know that our own intelligence people consciously and with approval brainwashed the citizens?
Wow.
That's really shocking.
I didn't know that so many people didn't know that.
You know, if you didn't know that, nothing makes sense.
Some of you might be having a moment right now where you say to yourself, wait a minute.
If the CIA, and we know it, has been brainwashing Americans for decades, and we're pretty sure they're still doing it, just maybe not under that name, Wouldn't that mean that everything we see in the news is manufactured?
Exactly.
Everything you see in the news is manufactured.
Not the news itself, although in some cases that's manufactured too.
Sometimes the news itself is manufactured.
I don't know if you knew that.
You know, people create situations that will create news that's favorable to them.
But just imagine how different the world looks if you know That you're in the middle of a gigantic brainwashing operation.
If you didn't know that, nothing makes sense.
For those of you who didn't know that, how did you explain everything you're seeing?
How did anything make sense if you didn't know that you're in a brainwashing operation and that it's well documented and well understood?
That's interesting.
All right, so I guess it wasn't just Bill Maher, but I would say that for those of you who also didn't know that or didn't know who Klaus Schwab is or the WEF, if you don't know those things, I don't know that you should be talking about politics.
Those are pretty basic, pretty basic things.
Yeah, Roseanne was the guest.
I don't know if she explained them, but she brought it up and you said you didn't know.
All right, I'm loving the activism of investor Bill Ackman, who went to Harvard, and now he is very, very unhappy with Harvard about their anti-Semitism, as he would say.
And he has discovered from his own research, he talked to a bunch of professors, so first he wrote a big public letter to the president of Harvard, but he says she didn't respond, and it was about their anti-Semitism.
So he went and talked to a bunch of professors and then he gave the verbatim quotes from the professors.
Oh my God!
So Bill Ackman finds out that for many years the policy was explicitly don't hire white guys.
No straight white men.
Just period.
And he acted surprised.
Is there anybody here who didn't know that straight white men were being discriminated against in college professor hiring?
Is there anybody who didn't know that?
Maybe, I don't know, maybe Bill Maher found out this year.
But here's the funny thing.
So it's a must read.
I mean, you really need to read Bill Lackman's post on it.
I also reposted it.
So He goes through the details of what's wrong, the racism in Harvard, and you can tell that Harvard is just dead.
I mean, it looks like it's something you would tell your kids to stay away from at all costs.
Like, honestly, that's not an exaggeration.
With no exaggeration, once you understand what the situation is there, you would tell your kids to stay away from that at all costs.
Because they would come back broken.
After that experience.
But here's the thing that I don't think Bill Ackman and maybe his readers don't understand.
This is the current situation for at least 30 years.
At least 30 years.
A little more.
I think it's closer to 40.
But every major American corporation is discriminating against straight white men and has for 40 years.
Just grossly, directly, Overtly, publicly, discriminating against straight white men.
Yeah.
And certainly that happened to me.
So maybe a little bit of truth is seeping out.
There's Colin Rugg was reporting that apparently Harvard is now under federal investigation and may lose its federal funding for discriminating against Jewish students.
To which I say, wait, Harvard has federal funding?
To me, that was the surprising part of the story.
I thought they had gigantic endowments.
Why are we giving them money to discriminate against me?
Really, my government is paying an entity that very clearly would never hire me.
Are you kidding?
Why did they get any money?
That's crazy!
There's no way the federal government should be giving my tax dollars to the people who are overtly discriminating against me in an unconstitutional way.
Now, you know, the more immediate problem is they're being anti-Semitic.
But you didn't even need the anti-Semitism.
Why is the government giving them money to discriminate?
I don't get that at all.
It's not like they're going to run out of money if they don't get money from the government.
So that's pretty alarming.
But it's weird because it's the Biden administration that's doing the investigation.
So I guess when the discrimination was against Jewish students, the Biden administration had to act.
But 40 years of discriminating against white men?
Fuck off!
Nobody cared.
So, I don't know.
I've got a little problem that it's only a problem now.
Last 40 years?
Screw those white guys.
Anyway, Christopher Ruffo says that left-wing professors are leaving Florida.
I guess this is a known thing.
So, because DeSantis is trying to unwoke the colleges in Florida.
The Florida professors are saying, screw this, we're going to go where we can discriminate in peace.
So they're going to leave because they couldn't discriminate.
To which Florida says, yay!
Florida might be the only place you could get a good education in the future.
Maybe Texas too.
Well, in Philadelphia, there was an anti-Semitic candlelight march.
You could call it pro-Palestine, Palestine.
But they stopped in front of a Jewish business that had nothing to do with anything.
It was just a Jewish-owned business.
Had nothing to do with the Middle East.
Had nothing to do with Hamas or Israel.
Just a Jewish business.
And they decided to like gather around it and say scary shit.
This is just totally anti-Semitic.
Behavior.
Now what's interesting is that the Philadelphia Inquirer writes about this, you know, like it's just a protest.
What exactly is the difference between this and the Charlottesville neo-Nazis?
Let's see.
One had candlelight and the other had torches, but basically a burning thing.
They marched in an organized fashion at night.
Similar.
And they said they didn't want Jews to replace them.
That's basically the same protest.
Right?
Literally, the Palestinians are complaining about Jews replacing them.
So I would ask Peter Ducey to ask the White House spokesperson if she thinks there were any fine people in the group.
Isn't that a fair question?
Just ask.
Do you think there were any fine people in the group that surrounded the Jewish business and were clearly acting in an anti-Semitic way?
Were any of them good people?
Fine people?
Let's ask the administration.
Let's get them on record.
By the way, did anybody watch, was it Representative Tlaib and Dana Bash?
Dana Bash was like going at her hard for her Alleged, you know, let's say insensitivity or, you know, anti-Semitic behavior, some would say.
Did anybody see that?
The way it was reported on social media looked exactly opposite of what actually happened to me.
Here's what I saw.
Representative Tlaib, are you, do you care about, you know, the rape that happened in Israel?
Oh, yes.
Rape is terrible.
Hamas should be totally condemned for that.
Okay, but why aren't you saying enough about the rapes that are happening?
Well, I just did.
I totally condemn it.
Rape is terrible.
Completely out of line.
Terrible.
Dana Bash said.
Okay, but still, it seems like you're forgiving the rape.
No.
Rape is terrible.
Hamas is a terrorist organization.
I didn't know what I was watching.
Oh, was it J-A-P-L?
So it wasn't Tlaib.
Was it?
Who was it?
Do I have the wrong representative?
Primalaya J-A-P-L.
Oh, it was J-A-P-L.
Okay.
So I got my representatives mixed up.
But here's what I saw.
I saw her getting the Trump treatment.
You know what I mean?
The Trump treatment is where you ask him to say something, then he says it.
And then you act like he didn't just say it.
And you say, why won't you say it?
And then he'll say it.
And then you say, but why won't you say it?
Why can't you just say it?
And then you'll say, this is the third time I just said it.
I'll say it a third time.
What is wrong with Dana Bash?
And then the news reports it like she didn't say it because Dana Bash pretended she didn't hear it or something.
It was the damnedest thing.
Now, I'm not supporting the guest.
I'm just saying that I didn't see her being treated fairly at all.
And that's by CNN.
Weird.
Didn't expect that.
Anyway, there's a little viral video going around of the following people saying, F you.
Uh, you know, Dana White, somebody questioned why he was going to do a Bud Light sponsorship.
And he said, he just told him to fuck you.
And we know that Tucker Carlson recently had a quote where people were, you know, maybe trying to censor him.
And he said, fuck you.
And there was a Elon Musk who recently was in a group where he was at an event.
He was asked about the advertisers pulling out.
And he said, if you're trying to blackmail me, fuck you.
Now, the idea behind this viral video is that the internet dads are just finally reaching their limit and they're just saying F you.
Here's the thing that really bothered me about this.
I feel like I was the OG.
I feel like I didn't get enough credit.
Maybe I worded it wrong.
Did I word it wrong?
Get the fuck away instead of fuck you?
They're not that different.
They're not that different if you think about it.
I may have just said it wrong.
Anyway.
So as you know, the bad guys, the brainwashers on the Democrat side have clearly decided that their attack against Trump He's a dictator tyrant who's trying to destroy your democracy.
How did Jordan Peterson do it too?
So you've seen it already, right?
You know, all the usual suspects like the Atlantic and the Washington Post.
Basically all the most disreputable publications.
They're already signaling to the rest.
That it's all going to be about Trump's insurrectionist tyrant wants to end democracy, right?
So, what's the best response to that?
If the biggest attack against you is you're going to try to end democracy, what should Trump do?
Well, turns out that he's doing exactly what I would have advised him to do.
Something that maybe only Trump can do this well.
He's going to accuse them of the same thing.
He's going to say he's fighting to regain democracy against the weaponization of the justice system.
Now, you might say to yourself, but he's just saying, you know, it's not me, it's you.
Isn't that weak?
Nope.
Here's what he needs to do, and we'll definitely get it done.
He needs to make sure that everybody involved in the race is calling everybody else a dictator.
He needs to make sure that it's the only thing anybody's saying.
You're a dictator, you're a dictator, you're a dictator.
But what about this dictator, dictator, dictator?
But what about you tyrant, tyrant, tyrant?
Biden's a tyrant, well Trump's a tyrant.
But Trump's more of a tyrant or less of a tyrant?
Is he more of a dictator or less of a dictator?
Which one is against democracy and which one is protecting democracy?
And eventually, what will happen to the viewers?
They will become snowblind.
You know what snowblind is?
You go outside and it's really snowy, but it's bright because of the reflection.
It's just all snow.
You can't see where one snowbank ends and the other one begins.
It's like, ah, all I can see is everything's whiteout.
I'm snowblind.
So I think Trump could pull this off because he has so much material to work with.
He's got, you know, 91 bullshit accounts against him.
He's got the brainwashing industrial complex has now been fully identified.
I think we all understand that the J6 thing was a hoax.
I think he can go right at them.
Go twice as hard as they go, because he gets more attention, right?
So Biden is going to have to use surrogates because he's not going to be doing much.
But you want to hear the best part?
This is how much the left don't want Biden to be the nominee.
Snopes fact-checked Biden for saying that Trump wanted to end democracy as we know it.
And Snopes, a famously Democrat-friendly fact-checker, said, he didn't say anything like that.
Snopes.
If you don't know the players, that doesn't make as much sense.
But for those of you who kind of know who are the biased players in the political universe, if Snopes goes right at, and here's the thing, they didn't just fact-check Biden.
That would be unremarkable.
Because he's the president, so they've got to do some fact-checking.
And some of the facts, I'm sure they've fact-checked them before, and found out it wasn't accurate.
But we don't care too much about politicians failing the fact-check, because it's so often.
But when you see Snopes go after the primary claim of Biden, that Trump's a non-democratic candidate, and they just fact-check his ass.
They literally just fact-checked it.
No.
No, he never said anything like that.
There's a lot in that.
There's a lot to unpack with the fact that he's fact-checked the single greatest claim of the Democrats before they even get started.
So, I like that.
So do you remember in 2015, the knock on Trump is that he was an incompetent clown with no persuasive powers or relevant talents?
You remember that, right?
2015 wasn't that long ago.
And he was the untalented one.
He just didn't have any skill.
He was just a clown.
And now they say that his skills and talents are so impressive that just by the force of his personality and persuasion, he could turn the Republic into a dictatorship just by talking.
And of course, what the Democrats believe is that they would round up people and kill them.
Well, Like that's really gonna happen, okay?
Now, you want to hear the strongest argument against Trump becoming a dictator?
If you really believe that's true, here's what Republicans need to say in a poll.
You need a national poll to ask you this question.
Are you a Republican?
Yes or no?
And then you look at the Republican answers and you say the following question.
If Trump tried to get rid of democracy in a real way, would you be willing to kill him to stop it?
Would you as a Republican be willing to kill him yourself if he actually tried to remove democracy?
And the answer is, I would.
I would.
I love the guy, and I would.
If he tried to actually destroy, if he tried to actually destroy democracy?
Now, why are so many people saying no?
Are you saying no that you wouldn't, you would not participate if an actual dictator tried to take over?
Or are you saying no to something else?
What do all the no's do?
I don't know what you're disagreeing to.
All right.
But my point is this.
I don't think Democrats understand the most basic thing about a Republican.
The single most basic thing.
You tell me if I'm wrong about this.
The most basic thing that makes a Republican?
We don't care who tries to be.
I'll say we.
I'm not a Republican, but for this context, I agree.
We don't care who it is who's trying to become the dictator.
We're still going to kill you.
Am I wrong?
We don't care who it is.
We don't care if you were friendly in the past.
I don't care what cool things you said.
I don't care how funny your tweets are.
If you try to become a dictator, we're going to kill you.
Greg says I'm wrong.
Now, you think that the Republicans were actually pro-dictator.
You think that's a thing?
Now, are you Democrats or something?
I can't believe there's anybody who owns a gun who believes that they wouldn't take out a dictator if they had a shot at it.
Not murder?
Oh, I see what you're saying.
Oh, I see.
I think I understand your objections.
You're saying that you would use a constitutional process, right?
Is that what you're saying?
That you would never do murder, you would just do a constitutional process?
Is that where the disagreement is?
Oh, okay, okay.
Okay, but you're cheating on the question.
If you saw things going a little bit undemocratic, then of course you're not going to murder him.
You're going to work with an assistant.
But I'm talking about... Let me give you a specific example.
Let's say that Trump successfully jailed every elected Democrat.
All of them.
You'd be okay with that?
And you would fight it constitutionally?
Is that how you would fight that?
Constitutionally?
You would fight that with lawyers?
No, you wouldn't.
You would not.
Well, you could stay home.
You could stay home, but Republicans would go in there and slaughter those in charge.
There would be enough armed Republicans that they would free all the Democrats.
The Republicans, I'll say it again, the Republicans would free the Democrats.
They would fix that shit.
My audience is captured?
Maybe it is.
I don't know.
But I take your point as a serious one.
You don't want to talk about violence when there's any other option.
We all agree on that, right?
If you have a non-violent path to correct what you thought was a lack of democracy or a democratic process in a republic, You would definitely, definitely want to do the non-violent one.
So, when I come up with a scenario in which there's no non-violent path, you know, you're kind of cheating when you say, but I want the non-violent path.
I kind of eliminated that from the question.
But, you would be right in saying it's a judgment call.
You'd resist but not kill.
Well, it's a good thing there are people who are willing to kill.
When I see how many people would resist but wouldn't get violent, Makes me glad that there are other people.
Let's see.
Let me do that.
I'm going to see if I can restart Locals.
I'm going to restart it on my iPad and see if that works.
Now, will that kill the?
I don't know if that'll work.
I can see the comments on my phone, so we'll keep going this way.
All right.
So yeah, I think, and by the way, Trump's plan is to do exactly what I said.
His plan is to go after Biden for being undemocratic and weaponizing the justice system.
And I believe that is exactly the right approach.
So that's good.
I guess there's a, we're getting closer to a Biden impeachment probe, how speaker Mike Johnson says.
How would you like to be running for president?
We can ask Trump.
How would you like to be running for president while there's an impeachment probe going on at the same time?
That's tough.
Does anybody think that Biden could win in a straight up election?
Do any of you believe that?
I'm looking at Owen's comment.
The military would remove Trump if he went full dictator.
Well, I don't know if it's the military or the Republicans in the military.
Yeah, yeah, you're right.
I think the military would take care of it.
Probably.
Probably.
Don't know for sure, but probably.
All right, so yeah, so that's, Biden's got some problems.
There's a new poll shows that DeSantis and Nikki Haley are kind of close to each other in second place behind Trump.
But here's the question about VP.
So there's a growing movement for, at least online, I don't know how much of the country thinks this, but online, people want Tucker Carlson to be Trump's VP pick.
What do you think of that?
Tucker Carlson as a VP pick.
I'm going to give you a better idea.
Tucker Carlson as the spokesperson for the president.
Tucker Carlson as the spokesperson.
The Jean-Pierre job.
The Korean Jean-Pierre.
You don't think you'd like to see Tucker Carlson destroying the media every day?
He'd be amazing.
Yeah, the press secretary.
I think he'd be amazing for that.
I think it's more of a stretch to imagine him in a governing role, because I think that would be a waste.
But in a communication role, oh my God!
Oh my God!
Now, I doubt he would do it, because I think his role in the world is too important at the moment.
I think it would be a downgrade.
But wow, would that be fun to watch.
Wow.
Ben Carson would be a terrible choice.
I think Ben Carson's, you know, barely sensitive.
You know, he's just sleepy, Ben.
Yeah, he doesn't have the energy.
He doesn't have the, he doesn't have the Trump energy.
I think you need somebody who's got the same kind of energy.
Yeah.
There's no way Trump's going to pick a low-energy vice president.
There's no way.
I mean, Pence was, you know, bland, but at least he had energy.
All right.
There's a report that Jerry Kushner and Ivanka organized a private lunch in New York with Qatar's prime minister.
And some bipartisan Jewish businessmen and billionaires.
And some people are saying, wait, what is this private citizen trying to do?
You know, is he trying to do foreign policy?
To which I say, what exactly are we worried about here?
Are we worried that literally the most capable Middle East negotiator and peacemaker might do it again?
Who would you want besides Jared Kushner to be on the case?
He literally would be the number one person on the planet that I would want engaged in the question of, you know, what do you do next?
And yeah, maybe he's more involved in what do you do next?
Who knows what they talked about?
But certainly getting some kind of notion of what happens later in Gaza would be a good idea.
Yeah.
So Jared was behind the Abraham Accords.
You would be the very best person to be involved in this.
Can't imagine anybody more productive.
Speaking of productive, Governor Abbott of Texas has signed a law that grants all police officers in every agency authority to arrest illegal immigrants.
Well, that's interesting.
I never really thought about it.
So apparently there are some kinds of police people in a number of agencies that couldn't arrest Illegally immigrants, but I guess I can we'll see if that makes any difference You know, I do kind of like the fact that Texas never gives up Have you noticed that?
Texas just keeps trying anything they can to handle their immigration problem and their biggest enemy is just the federal government Which is weird Yeah Well, uh Elon Musk Cryptically posted this, grow food yourself.
And when I first saw it, I was like, grow food yourself?
Is this some kind of comment on our food system?
And then I thought, oh, maybe it's because his brother does indoor farming.
Like he's got an indoor farm company, Square Root.
And so I thought, maybe it's about food.
But then I realized it's because GFY is trending.
Go fuck yourself.
So it took me a while to figure out that GFY and grow food yourself are the same.
All right, Cenk Uygur, if that's how I say it, Cenk Uygur, who's running for president as a Democrat, has no choice, who has no chance because it won't even be a Florida primary.
He says, this is what class warfare looks like.
He's talking about the Republicans want to, I guess, cut the state tax.
And he says, the wealthy use their bought politicians to attract as much wealth as possible and never pay their fair share.
Serving the rich is the whole point of the Republican Party.
Now, you know what economists Who's the economist who said this first so it doesn't sound like I came up with it?
I'm blanking on his name.
The economist who said, what is someone else's fair share of your money?
You know the quote, right?
No, not Milton Friedman.
I'm trying not to say the famous, yeah, there it is, Thomas Sowell.
I wanted to see how long I could go without saying black.
Because if I'd said the black economist, you would have said immediately Thomas Sowell.
But since there was nothing black about the quote, and he's a famous economist, I wondered if I could just say economist and the famous quote, and you'd get it immediately.
It took a while.
Took you a minute.
Yeah, Thomas Sowell's pretty awesome.
But yes, that question I think is so insightful.
What is the fair share of someone else's money?
That really is a conversation stopper, isn't it?
There's no such thing as a fair share of someone else's money.
That doesn't even make sense.
But Democrats are selling that.
I was taught that my fair share of someone else's money is zero.
Was anybody taught differently?
My fair share of somebody else's money is zero.
All right.
Liz Cheney is being her Liz Cheney self.
And she says that nobody who actually supports the Constitution can also support Donald Trump because he's a dictator tyrant.
He's a dictator tyrant.
To which I say, can we stop treating people like her, like they have a political opinion?
You take one look at her face and you see mental illness.
That's all it is.
It's just mental illness.
There's no way we should treat this seriously.
There should be a way to just sort the mentally ill and the drunk from the people who have something like a political opinion.
Why are we having Conversations about the political opinion of somebody who's clearly in mental decline.
Clearly.
All right.
Jonathan Haidt is talking about X. A new study shows that TikTok and Instagram trap young people.
Meaning that young people, if you ask them, they say they might like to quit those things.
You know, they feel there's some damaging parts to it.
But they can't because all their friends are on it, and you just can't not be on it.
So what we imagine is entertainment turned into something else.
It's sort of a sticky trap.
So even though we tell ourselves, well, they could just stop doing it if they wanted to, they really can't.
It's like sugar, salt, fat addicts you to bad foods.
The algorithms addict you to this content.
And if you're a child, no, you can't escape brainwashing.
That's not a thing.
Children can't escape brainwashing.
Adults can't do it.
There's no way a child is going to do it.
And then they said, but if offered the chance to pay their own money to have everyone get off the app, so not just themselves, they don't want to do that.
But if they could pay their own money to get everybody off the app and make it disappear, they would.
Think about that.
The actual users of TikTok, if they could, would ban it for everybody.
Just as long as it's not only them who is getting off it.
That's a real big deal.
Because it means you could ban it.
Not only that, but I'll bet you if you ban TikTok, you would find that young people thanked you after the fact.
They wouldn't know it.
They wouldn't know it before it happens, maybe.
They'd be like, oh, my favorite app.
But I bet you a month after you banned it, people would say, you know, I feel a lot better.
Unless they just went and used Instagram instead, I suppose.
All right.
So TikTok is a severe health risk to young people, an existential threat.
If you think that TikTok is a free speech issue, You probably also think Harvard is a real college.
Am I right?
I just wanted to test that out.
I want to start using Harvard as a punchline.
You can do this with lots of things.
You can say, if you believe that, well, you probably also believe Harvard's a real college.
Am I right?
Try that at home.
It might work.
Well, here's another example of if you don't know the players, You don't understand the story.
This is really important.
If you see a story in the news, and you think the story is the story, you're going to be all confused about what's happening in the world.
Because the story is not the story.
You know what the story is?
Who wrote it.
Who wrote it, and who they're connected to.
Who they used to work with, and who they're married to.
That's always the story.
The story is never the content of the article.
It's always the author and what narrative they are pushing because of who they're connected to.
Here's a good example.
Glenn Greenwald is an essential follow on X. I call him essential because he's really good at the human part of this, who's connected to whom.
Here's one he posted today and he says, this says everything.
Robert Kagan, who is Victoria Newland's husband.
How many of you recognize Victoria Newland?
As a name in the news.
Well, some would say she is one of the chief neocons, which are people who like to take over other countries in a war-like fashion because people who make money from war seem to like doing that.
So those are the accusations about Victoria Nuland.
I don't personally know too much about that situation, but those are the accusations people routinely make about her, that she's sort of the princess of evil.
It turns out that Robert Kagan is her husband.
So now that you know that she's maybe one of the two chief neocons who are always trying to push for war in other countries, and now you know that her husband is Robert Kagan, do you know that his job is a Washington Post editor?
The Washington Post, the news entity that is most associated with not being real news, meaning that they look like they're owned by intelligence sources or somebody, They have an editor who is actually married to the chief most famous neocon war princess of all time.
And of course, you know, he's part of what is part of the calling Trump a dictator.
He's a dictator, he's a dictator.
So if you see the Washington Post, and there's an editor there saying that Trump's a dictator, just know that that has nothing to do with any facts.
That has to do with who he is, and what their other ambitions are.
So, and Mike Benz is another great one for the who's connected to who world.
And he commented on Glenn Greenwald's post, he said, a lot of people miss the real story here.
Kagan's not calling Trump a dictator because he thinks he's a dictator.
Kagan's inflating dictator because that kicks in the predicate for the regime change dirty tricks.
Right.
If you say Trump will do a bad job as president, well then all you can do is normal political activity.
But if you say he's a dictator, That activates the entire Democrat machine to be able to do anything.
You gotta stop the dictator.
So, it's signaling very clearly to the worst people on the left that there are no limitations to what they can do, ethically and morally.
Well, the Hamas reported death count, which, how many think that Hamas has an accurate death count in Gaza?
Does anybody think they're telling you the truth?
Do we have to do it?
You know, do I have to sandwich this one?
I have to sandwich it.
Because this is one of the things that people will take out of context.
So before I say the thing, here's the first piece of bread.
Nobody in their right mind would believe Hamas's death gale.
No one in their right mind would believe what Hamas says about the death gale.
Now that I've said that, that's the first piece of bread.
What they say about the death count is it's over 15,000.
Now I'm going to put on the second piece of bread.
Nobody believes what Hamas says about the death count.
Nobody believes what Hamas says about the death count.
Did I do that right?
Did I put that between the two slices just right?
So I can use their death count because I made sure you understand it's not credible.
Here's my point.
Did I ever say this publicly?
I need a fact check from you, those who have been watching me.
Did you hear me say, or did I only say it privately, because I know I said it privately, that Israel would have to keep the death count under 20,000?
Because 20,000 psychologically feels like too much, right?
If somehow the entire death count in Gaza had been 500 people, even if the 500 had been civilians, most of the world would say, oh, that's horrible.
We wish they had not died.
But they would have also said, you know, given the situation, what can you do?
At 5,000, it's a problem.
At 10,000, it's a big problem.
But at 20,000, it looks like genocide.
Looks like genocide.
Oh, sandwich time, sandwich time, sandwich time.
I'm not saying it's genocide because nobody believes the Hamas death count.
All right, that's first piece of bread.
But if it reached 20,000 reported, reported, because remember, the news is reporting this.
So if Hamas updates it to 20,000, the news will report it.
Doesn't mean it's true, but they will report it.
And that's going to turn it into a genocide.
Oh, another piece of bread!
It's not a genocide, because the Hamas numbers are not real.
The Hamas numbers are not real.
They cannot be believed.
But the media will report it.
If the media reports it, it will become real in people's minds, no matter what the death count is.
Do you agree with that point?
That if you start hearing that number, you're going to forget it came from Hamas.
And it will just sort of become the real number in your mind.
Israel will always complain and say it's inflated.
But then people are going to say, you know, maybe you inflate numbers too.
So they're not going to get any traction saying it's not real.
So, let me ask the question.
Did anybody ever hear me say in public, because I don't know if I said it in public, that 20,000 was going to be sort of a magic number?
Did anybody hear me say that?
I'll say it again now if you didn't hear me say it the first time.
So what I think, and here's why I base this.
Some of the ways that I do prediction is I just say, all right, what would I think in that situation?
And so I think of, I just do this, I say, I think of the enormity of the October 7th event.
It's just enormous in your head.
And then I think, all right, what would be too much based on just how I feel?
No, no logic, no reason, no comparing it to anything.
No, no data.
Just how do I feel?
And so when I asked myself, how do I feel?
10,000, wow, 10,000 is a lot.
But that's just war.
But when you get to 20,000, my brain starts clicking over.
It says 20,000.
That's starting to sound like something else.
Now again, sandwich time.
None of the Hamas numbers of the dead are credible.
So don't believe them.
But because that will become the spin that we'll hear forever, it becomes real in the minds of people the way they treat it.
That doesn't make any logical sense.
Yeah.
So there's no logic to that.
Just how people will feel.
Anyway.
We promise what?
It's already really bad.
Yes, we know that.
You can't do your own research.
The most you can do is seek out other people's research.
Yeah.
I agree with that completely.
All right.
Yeah, who's counting is the whole story?
Yeah, the media is.
The media is repeating the Hamas number, but they don't have any other number.
Yeah.
Yeah, it's fog of war.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, is there any pressing topic that you think I should have talked about that I didn't?
I think we're getting closer and closer to Ukraine winding down.
What do you think Putin should do?
Let's say the Ukrainian defenses just keep getting ground down.
And let's say you reach the point where Putin said, oh my goodness, The Ukrainians are so ground down that I can just go take Kiev now.
Would he do it?
I say no.
Because even if Putin thought he had the advantage and he'd ground them down enough and he had more resources and ammo than they do, at this point I think keeping what he has and try to bank it would be the smart way to go.
So In my opinion, I think the risk of nuclear war or a larger confrontation with Russia at the moment is close to zero.
And so far, although I guess the Iranians are getting a little more adventurous, I think it's them.
But there have been some missiles that came close to some of our ships in the area, right?
So I think they're testing our patience in that area.
No NATO?
I think that refers to Ukraine, right?
All right.
Taylor Lorenz threads on censorship?
I don't know what that situation is.
All right.
Let's see what else people are saying here.
What about Michael Malice?
Somebody just mentioned his name.
I don't know what the context was.
War analysts.
Well, have I not been right about everything except that Putin would attack?
And I should have been right about that too.
So remember, I keep confessing my worst prediction.
My worst prediction was that Putin would attack or would not attack Ukraine.
And then, you know, even when he had his forces on the border, I would say, he's not going to do it.
That'd be crazy.
So it's the most wrong I've been.
But what have we learned recently?
We've learned recently that the very beginning of the war, there was a push to not have a war.
And that the reason we had the war probably was us.
In other words, if Putin had been left to his own devices, it was just up to him, probably there wouldn't have been a war.
Because we would have negotiated, you know, he would put pressure on to negotiate, maybe we would have agreed not to move NATO into Ukraine or something.
So, I was completely wrong, but you can't get any closer to being right.
Meaning all we had to do is make a deal and there would have been no war.
All right.
Blaming Putin again.
Is that what you heard, Greg?
Did you hear me blame Putin?
Because that was literally the opposite of what I just said.
Literally the opposite.
What's wrong with your brain?
Are you drunk already?
Greg?
I think Greg's drunk.
Clarify?
I just told you.
The story is that the United States and Great Britain kept NATO from making peace.
How's that?
How's that Putin's fault?
So, try to catch up, Greg.
Everybody else is up to date.
All right.
All right.
I think that we've done everything we needed to do.
