Episode 2318 CWSA 12/10/23 The Hoax List Gets Longer & Trump Starts To Look Inevitable
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, Mike Cernovich, President Trump, Democrat Hoaxes, George Floyd Coroner Report, Derek Chauvin, Fall Of Minneapolis, Hoax Quiz List, Michael Shellenberger, Counterpopulist Messaging, Anti-Republican Messaging, President Biden Approval, Bill Ackman, President Claudine Gay, 2023 School Shootings, Mayor Eric Adams, Governor Katie Hobbs, Biden Border Policy, Kevin McCarthy, ESG, Mar-A-Lago Valuation, Lawrence Moens, AI Turing Test, Jonathan Turley, Biden Impeachment, Israel Hamas War, Soros Iran-Sympathizer Groups, 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 civilizations.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams because both of those things will be present today, the coffee and the Scott Adams.
And if you'd like this experience to be even better than you imagine, and I can imagine you're imagining it to be pretty good, All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or gels or cyan, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called Simultaneous Sip.
It happens now.
All right, Erica is in the house, so we can start.
I feel sorry for you on YouTube if you don't know who Eric is.
But someday you will.
Well, I hear Alex Jones is returning to the X platform.
Is he active yet or is he just approved?
I don't want to jump the gun.
I haven't seen him.
He's active, somebody says.
All right.
Well, as you know, Elon Musk did a Twitter poll.
And asked the people what they think.
70% said yes.
Put them back on.
And roughly a quarter said no.
The consistent 25%.
Oh, my.
Oh, my.
All right.
Would you like to hear a bunch of good news today?
Today's theme will be everything's going my way.
Not everything is where I want it to be, but everything's going my way.
Number one, Alex Jones is back on the X platform.
It's going my way.
Free speech.
It doesn't mean I have to agree with Alex Jones on anything or everything, but free speech.
There he is.
So free speech is getting a little boost, except in colleges, but that's another story.
Wall Street Journal reports that Ohio is building all these mega factories.
I guess the government's incentives to move business out of China and back into the U.S.
is working in the sense that the factories are being built, mostly in semiconductor and EV, electronic vehicle stuff.
But Ohio is building the factories, which is interesting that Ohio ends up being sort of a manufacturing center.
But they can't get enough workers.
You know this is going to be the big problem for the next, I don't know, 30 years?
Not enough workers.
Not enough workers who are sober and willing to work.
That's the problem.
So, how are you going to solve not enough workers?
Immigration?
Immigration, anybody?
Yeah, not open immigration where everybody pours across the border, but almost certainly, Almost certainly, we're going to have to boost immigration from any place where they've got well-educated working people.
Probably a lot of Indian immigration, etc.
That's good.
There are not too many things that make me happier than seeing us secure our supply chain and get it out of China.
Well, Trump is calling out hoaxes.
I love the fact that Trump has adopted the word hoax for the various, you know, plays that have been played against him, the various ops.
Because I think that's the most operative word.
And it's the most accurate.
It's not perfectly accurate, but it's the most accurate.
And it's the word that his base uses.
Now, do you know who's the, let's say, the godfather of that word?
Because that didn't used to be a word that was applied to politics, right?
No, it's not me.
Not me.
I adopted it quickly.
But it's, it's Cernovich.
So you always, people always ask me, you know, how much influence does Cernovich have?
You have no idea.
You have no idea.
But I'm pretty sure that making the word hoax an adopted normal word in politics, I think that's all him.
I'm just one of the people who was influenced by it early, because I could tell it was the right word.
Well, Trump's using the word, and he calls the acts against him, desperate and shameless attempts to distract from the monstrous abuses of power the left is committing before your eyes.
And he says, Trump says, the radical left Democrats, their fake news allies, have unveiled their newest hoax.
That Donald J. and the Republican Party are a threat to democracy.
This is their new line.
Here we go again.
Russia, Russia, Russia.
Mueller, Mueller, Mueller.
Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine.
One hoax after another, Trump said.
Now we're getting fun.
Now I've been telling you.
That Trump needs to move directly against the hoaxes.
He needs to frame the attacks against them as hoaxes, and make them discuss whether or not they're hoaxes.
So the win would be to make the left engage with the word.
You see it coming?
Because the left is going to have to write articles about how they're not hoaxes.
If he keeps using the word, they have to write something that says, Oh, all these things he's saying are not hoaxes.
They are real because Phil Bump said so.
CNN and MSNBC said so.
So it must be real.
No, they're not real.
They're all hoaxes.
And the more Trump pushes that button, hoax, hoax, hoax, hoax, it's totally backed up.
I mean, he has all the backup for that in the world.
The better we are.
Now, I would still like to see him go A little further into mocking it.
But first you have to frame it.
Right?
So the framing is happening and it's happening hard.
Right?
Trump is killing it, by the way.
He's not just doing well in the polls.
His actual performance is really, really good.
He's not saying stuff that eliminates him.
He's saying stuff that his base wants to hear.
He's dominating everything.
So, I mean, he's just having a real good season, I think.
So that's good.
More, more hoax stuff.
Speaking of hoaxes, I was watching Jack Posobiec talking to Liz Collins, she of the new documentary movie, The Fall of Minneapolis.
And really, I think the key to understanding that hoax is the coroner's report.
And here's the part I didn't, either I didn't remember or I didn't know, but I was reminded of it, that The coroner's report on George Floyd was done in 12 hours, and in 12 hours he determined that basically there was no murder.
There was no asphyxiation, no marks on the neck.
I'd forgotten, maybe I didn't know this, but I knew that Floyd had some heart issues.
I didn't know that he had 75% blockage.
It's 75% heart blockage.
I also knew that he had a Fatal dose of fentanyl in him.
I didn't know it was three times the fatal dose.
Now, to be clear, if you're a real big guy who's used to it, you know, it would take a bigger dose to kill you.
He's a real big guy.
He was probably used to it.
But three times?
How in the world does somebody get convicted of killing somebody who has triple the lethal dose?
There's no legal way that happens.
The only way that happens is illegal.
And that's, you know, I would consider the process that put Derek Chauvin in jail as an illegal process, because it did not adhere close enough to our standards of justice to be called anything legal.
I don't know if any crime was committed.
It looks like it.
I mean, based on the reporting, it looks like the FBI committed a crime by forcing law enforcement to change, to change an analysis without any backing for that.
Shouldn't that be a crime?
I don't know what crime it would be, but how could it not be a crime?
Forcing local law enforcement to change the scientific recommendation of the coroner without any extra information, just being hammered on until he changes it?
How is that not illegal?
At the very least, yeah, tampering with evidence, I guess, maybe generally speaking.
All right, well, Yeah, so I added, you know, I keep a hoax list.
I call the hoax quiz.
So I updated it with the George Floyd hoax.
Now we have the George Floyd hoax.
I'm thinking of narrowing down the hoax quiz, though.
Because right now, I was going for volume.
But if you go for volume, you know, like a lot of hoaxes, you end up with just too many.
You know, you sort of just, you get snow blind looking at it.
I think I might cut it down to something like the six key hoaxes.
Now three is not enough.
Three is not enough.
But it might be the top five.
Maybe the top five.
Because I think you can make an article that would describe everything you're seeing with the top five hoaxes.
What do you think?
If I were to write a large article and say the top five hoaxes that defined 2024.
Now, ten's too many.
You know, you can't write an article with the top ten anything, unless the ten are just quick hits.
But if you need to do a paragraph on each one, five's a lot.
Ten is way too much.
So I think maybe this could be good branding.
Top five hoaxes that define 2024.
Just think of that as a title to an article.
That's a powerful title.
The top five hoaxes that define 2024.
When you hear the title, don't you say to yourself, oh my God, that would be powerful.
Like without even seeing the article, you could feel the power in that title.
Because I could back that up.
It'd be really easy to back it up.
All right.
Speaking of things we don't trust, Michael Schellenberger, who's been an absolute superstar in 2023 and before.
Has anybody had a better year than Michael Schellenberger?
You know, in terms of adding to the, you know, the body of knowledge that citizens should have, but we didn't have.
My God!
Yeah, he's bordering on, like, Nobel Prize territory.
I don't think there is one for what he does, but he's bordering on like national treasure.
Like he's sort of going beyond just talking about the news.
It's a whole different category at this point.
But here's something, an observation he's making, and I'll tell you in advance, I'm not 100% sure I'm going to buy into this one, but it's really interesting.
So here's his observation.
He's writing about it today, it's on X. That there's signs of military discipline behind what he calls the counter-populist messaging.
Now, I think he's being, you know, maybe a little bit politically correct or trying to be balanced when he calls it counter-populist messaging.
What would you call counter-populist messaging?
I would call it anti-Republican messaging, right?
Are there any Democrat populists?
I feel like populist is just, you know, the word they use for Republicans who like Trump.
Anyway, but that aside, you know, I would agree with them using counterpopulist as a maybe more objective way to say it, I guess.
Here's his observation.
That over the last seven years, establishment voices, I think that's mostly Democrats, but not necessarily, have focused on framing their enemies as four different categories.
Foreign, crazy, dangerous, and undemocratic.
Now here's why that's important.
As he points out, he's been involved in many activist things for most of his adult life.
And one of the things you notice about genuine grassroots activism is that their messaging is all over the place.
Would you agree?
The real grassroots stuff, everybody's taking their own shot.
Like, oh, I'm going to take this shot.
I'm going to take this shot.
So you get this sort of randomized group of complaints.
But apparently the U.S. military and NATO, so this is the observation, would be more disciplined in making sure that their messaging fit one of the four boxes.
Because apparently there must be some military thinking that those are the strongest boxes for attacking a message.
Now, I'm not totally buying into this.
But I love the thinking and I love the exploration of this.
Because I'm definitely not ruling it out.
I'm just saying I'll need a little bit more to be fully bought into it.
Thank you.
But, so my first question is, what would you be saying if you were not saying foreign crazy dangerous or undemocratic?
To me that seems to cover everything.
What would be an example of an anti-populist message that wasn't one of these?
That anybody had that?
That saying it comes from a foreign source, right?
They're always saying it's coming from Russia.
Somebody's crazy.
This is just the basic things we say about everybody.
Dangerous.
Right?
And undemocratic.
Meaning dictator.
So those are exactly the things that they say about Trump over and over again.
Give me your gut feeling.
Do you think that this suggests military precision in messaging?
As in the same kind of weapons we would use to influence a foreign adversary?
Or are they just the obvious things everybody says?
Let me give you the counter-argument, just so you've heard it.
So I'm not going to say the counter-argument is the correct one, but just so you've heard it.
Isn't it true that no matter what Republican is running, they're always called Hitler?
Would you agree?
All Republicans are called Hitler.
So that would be the dangerous and undemocratic and crazy part.
That covers all three categories, crazy, dangerous, and undemocratic.
So here's where I have the question.
If it's just a reflex that all Democrats call all Republicans Hitler, isn't it always going to look like crazy, dangerous, and undemocratic?
Hitler crazy, dangerous, undemocratic.
And then the foreign part That does seem a little bit new.
I don't remember for most of my life that Republicans were being called Russian puppets.
Is that?
When did that start?
Was that always true?
Or was that more of a Trump modern thing?
2016, right?
Yeah.
So the one of the four that seems new is that Trump is continually being accused of Russian stuff.
And I just thought that was Hillary.
So my take on the foreign stuff is that it was a twofer.
That Hillary Clinton and some number of Democrats were anti-Russia, but they were also anti-Trump.
So isn't that where that comes from?
It was just a twofer.
It was sort of an obvious play.
Hillary tried to take down Putin forever.
She was trying to take down Trump, so she just says they're best friends.
I don't know about military precision or this.
What do you think?
Now, I also, I only read the, you know, the introduction to the idea.
I haven't read the sub stack yet, which I will.
I subscribe.
But are you, do you think this looks like military precision?
Or is it just the obvious thing that anybody would do for a Republican?
I guess some yeses, some noes.
So given that you're, you know, when you hear the argument, you're undecided as a group.
You know, there's some yeses and some noes.
Is this a fair topic for Michael Schellenberger to explore?
Do you think there's enough meat there that this is worth taking a bite out of it?
I say yes.
And the reason I say yes is It would be really important to know if any of the messaging is centralized.
If there's any central control.
I don't see it yet.
But I don't see it not happening either.
You know what I mean?
Like, I don't see the counter-argument at all.
So, the messaging... Well, let me say this.
The messaging is clearly coordinated.
But that's sort of normal Democrat stuff.
The Democrats do a really good job I'm making sure that everybody says the same thing at the same time.
They're really good at that.
But I don't know that that necessarily suggests, you know, a military involvement.
Now, that said, there are plenty of ex-military people involved in politics who presumably would bring all the skill that they have to every question.
Why would they leave any skills behind?
So if they had ever learned to focus on these four things because there's some science to it, Then you'd expect it would seep into the political realm.
There's one of the architects, you say.
All right, yeah, so I'd definitely like to figure out where it's coming from, and this would be a good place to look.
All right.
Biden's job approval.
There's a new poll.
I think it was Wall Street Journal or something.
No, CNN had a poll.
Release Wednesday shows Biden's job approval at 37% new low, with 63% disapproving.
Two-thirds of the country disapproving.
Now, obviously, that's going to include a lot of Democrats.
So Blacks are at 47%.
In other words, fewer than half of Black Americans support the Democrat candidate for president.
Has that ever happened before?
Is there any precedent?
Where fewer than half of black Americans supported the Democrat?
What was Bill Clinton's black support number?
It wasn't anywhere near what Trump is looking at.
I don't believe any of the numbers yet.
It's too early.
But here's what I think.
If it's true that there's all this military discipline in their messaging by the Democrats, If it's true that these polls are accurate and the whole country clearly doesn't want Biden, which would make it impossible for him to win an election, something really illegal might be brewing.
You know what I mean?
Because I think there's, there's gotta be a sense of desperation.
There's also some reporting that the Democrats are literally feeling desperate because they don't see any way out of it.
Now, Are they going to just let it go?
Do the Democrats see, you know, given how many hoaxes the Democrats have perpetrated, and most of them are illegal.
I mean, the George Floyd thing looks like a crime.
And the Christopher Steele dossier and the Russia collusion, to me, that looks criminal.
That looks like a crime to me.
You know, the 50 or so intel people who signed the letter saying, oh, that Hunter's laptop looks like Russian disinformation.
Now that might not be illegal, but it sure looks illegal to me.
I mean, not being a lawyer, I look at that and say, how the hell is that not illegal?
If you, if you knew you were doing it, if you knew it was a lie, how's that, how's that legal?
Yeah.
Shouldn't that be some kind of Rico bullshit or something?
I don't know.
But I would say every sign is blinking Every sign is just blinking.
There's a huge crime coming.
Short of a large crime, the Democrats are going to lose power.
Do you agree?
Short of a major crime, they're going to lose power.
Now here's the problem.
What happens if the election looks like Biden won, and all the polls say he didn't?
Worst case scenario, Worst case scenario.
Yeah.
I'm not even sure the Democrats would believe he won.
Would they?
Do you think even the Democrats would say, you know, why don't you just hold on a minute?
Because I feel that there are still enough patriotic Democrats that if the result was so different than the polling, you know, on election day, I feel like there would be enough Democrats to say, all right, that's too far.
Whatever happened here, we're going to have to stop and look at this.
Maybe.
I mean, it's a lot to ask, right?
Maybe.
If it's too far over the pale, then I think you'd get some Democrats to say, all right, I'm out.
I can't support this.
I think so.
Not many, but if you got a dozen or so, that would change everything.
You think a Trump conviction will be the excuse for a Dem win?
We'll see.
All right.
Bill Ackman, I guess he bagged his first college president.
So as you know, hedge fund investor, superstar Bill Ackman has been going hard about the big three college presidents who were not supportive enough of the Jewish students on their campus.
According to many people.
So I guess the University of Penn president did resign, and there was too much pressure from, it looked like donors.
It looked like it was donor pressure.
And now, so Bill Ackman gets one out of three, and now he's after Claudine Gay, the president of Harvard.
He's going even harder.
Apparently there are some allegations about her that Go beyond the newest dust up about free speech and Hamas and all that.
She is accused of some pretty bad things.
It's such a political situation.
I'm hesitant to mention the specifics, but it's academic stuff, right?
And the reason I don't want to get into it is because this is the sort of story That two days later you find out it might be exaggerated, right?
Accusations are not quite good enough, right?
So if you've only heard one side of the story, which is all I've heard, I've heard the accusations.
If you haven't heard her side of it, it's not fair.
It would definitely not be fair to assume any of that's true.
It could be true, but remember, she's an individual.
Let's not lose sight of this.
She's an American citizen in the United States.
So whatever else she did that you don't like, she is absolutely innocent until proven guilty of this and everything else.
And I don't see proof.
Maybe there would be.
But yeah, I think you got to be careful about going too hard.
Now I'd like to call out Glenn Greenwald again for being The strongest voice for saying that we're going too far in banning speech.
You know, there's that fine line between what is harassment and what is free speech.
But as Greenwald points out, calling for the destruction or genocide of a foreign country is the most ordinary thing that college students do.
Right?
And as he points out, if they had said, bomb Iran back to the Stone Age, nobody would have blinked.
Do you agree?
If college students said, you know, Iran's being bad, bomb them back to the Stone Age, nobody would even blink.
So it's not about, let's stop kidding ourselves.
It's not because people said things about genocide, as we say routinely.
It's just normal American speech, unfortunately.
It's normal American speech.
So why is this being called out specifically?
Well, the obvious reason is October 7th.
October 7th shocks you out of your principles.
You know what I mean?
You can have a lot of principles, but there's some amount of October 7th video footage that will just make you abandon them right away, and you'll just turn savage.
So one of the reasons I don't watch The video, besides I don't want PTSD for the rest of my life, the videos of the actual killings on October 7th, is that I don't want to be, I don't want to lose my principles by having my emotional reaction overwhelm them, and it definitely would.
Like I know myself, I know if I looked at that stuff, I would want to murder everybody in Gaza.
The innocent people, the guilty people, like I would lose my entire Moral bearings.
Because it's so far beyond, you know, even imagination, really.
So, you know, I'm fighting to retain some level of objectivity, but boy is it hard, especially since I've told you publicly, and privately it's the same, that I'm backing Israel 100% on the Hamas stuff.
Anything that happened before October 7th, I want to make a real clear distinction, I do not back Israel off.
Can I make that clear?
Everything that happened before October 7th, they're on their own.
I'm not agreeing with them or disagreeing.
I'm just saying you're on your own.
You are fucking on your own.
I'm not going to put one iota of my credibility on anything that happened before October 7th.
But I'm not going to complain about October 7th.
This is exactly what any country would have done in that situation.
They would have gone massively hard against the enemy.
They would not care too much about the civilian deaths, honestly.
So I just don't want to be hypocritical about it, but I'm not buying into anything.
I'm not buying into everything Israel's ever done.
Like, I'm not doing that.
Like, I'm going to retain a little bit of moral, you know, a little bit of moral cleanliness.
Whatever I can justify.
All right.
So, but to be clear, even clearer, a lot of the stuff that was happening on the colleges was bullying and threats of violence.
And that's not what we're talking about.
We're not talking about just talking.
If we were only talking, probably wouldn't be having the same conversation about getting rid of all the college presidents.
But it's the fact that the talking had turned into action and, you know, following people into rooms and saying direct threats against individuals.
That's just bullying.
So I think we all agree that the actions are not protected.
The speeches, but not the actions.
All right.
I saw End Wokeness, one of my favorite accounts on the X platform.
The End Wokeness account finds all these little counterfactuals to the big narratives.
But apparently in 2023, so far, there were 44 school shootings.
And here's the breakdown from at least somebody's statistical analysis.
That of the 44 school shootings, 35 of them were black school shooters.
Four Hispanic, four white, and one Asian.
Now, is that telling you something?
When you see that, that 35 of the 44 school shootings were black school shooters in 2023, does that tell you something useful?
No.
No.
Because you would have to know a lot more about the schools, right?
You'd have to know a lot more.
For example, if all of the school shootings happened in super poor schools, that's sort of the real story, isn't it?
If the shootings were like in rich schools and poor schools and there was just no difference, well then maybe you dig a little deeper and see what else is happening.
To me, that just looks like the ratio of shitty schools.
Don't you think the 35 shittiest schools in the United States are probably dominant black schools in poor neighborhoods and inner cities?
Probably.
Where would you expect the most shootings?
In the shittiest, poorest, urban schools.
So, this is one where You really, really need to untangle the economics from the story.
And without doing that, I'm going to take a pass on saying this means anything.
It could mean something.
I'm not saying it doesn't mean anything.
I'm saying this information by itself, beware.
All right.
It doesn't support the idea of white supremacy being behind shootings, but we need to know more.
All right.
The New York City Mayor, Eric Adams.
Went to get help from the federal government because all the migrants, now what they call the migrant crisis in New York City, and the federal government said, uh, no, we're giving you nothing.
So he came back empty-handed and he's saying, okay, we're totally screwed and we're on our own.
That's what a prominent Democrat is saying about his own party.
We're totally screwed by our own party and there's nothing we can do about it.
We're going to have to figure it out.
Just imagine that.
Now, remember my theme, everything's going my way?
Well, I don't want there to be a migrant crisis in New York City.
That's not going my way.
But it's definitely the darkest before the dawn situation.
The New York City essentially guarantees a Republican president.
And whether or not you like Republican presidents, I don't think you can doubt that they're going to be tougher on the border.
The migrant crisis will probably end on day one with a Republican president.
So the worse this gets in 2024, the better it's likely to be resolved.
So what you should expect is that 2024 will be much, much worse because it's the only way to get to a better situation.
If it were only a little bit mad, it would just last forever.
It's got to get to the point where it's intolerable by every single person who votes, and we're almost there.
So that's bad news that maybe has got some good news hidden in it, but it's really hidden under all the migrant crisis stuff.
And I guess New York City, according to Bill Malugin, Fox News, when he talks to people at the border, they're pretty much all set to go to New York City because they think that's their best bet.
I don't know if they know about winter.
Has anybody told them about winter?
If you don't figure out winter, you don't want to go to New York City.
I feel like somebody should tell them about winter, and then there would be a lot fewer.
But, of course, Texas and Florida are shipping people there.
Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs of Arizona.
And the important part of the story is Democrats.
Democrat governor.
Here's what a Democrat governor just did in Arizona.
She accused the Biden administration of creating an unmitigated humanitarian crisis that puts Arizona's safety and commerce at risk.
Democrat governor.
Democrat governor.
And she says she wants the federal government to pay her half a billion dollars because that's what Arizona spent trying to clean up the federal government's immigration disaster.
Democrat governor.
Democrat governor.
Could it be any clearer that the Biden administration is not working for the interests of the United States?
Is there any doubt about that?
How many Democrat leaders can you even name?
But two of the most prominent ones, Eric Adams and Katie Hobbs, who've been in the news for other reasons, they're just saying directly, the Biden administration is destroying our state.
That's about as clear as you can get.
Yeah, the Biden administration is destroying the state.
But here's what's interesting in a terrible way.
It's really easy to know what the problem is.
It's really easy to know it's getting worse.
And here's the weird part.
It's real easy to fix.
Real easy to fix.
They just don't do it.
What can you assume about immigration by the fact that even the local Democrats are saying, you know, hey, we give up.
We can't do this.
You have to assume corruption.
Can we just be honest?
There's no other reason.
There is no other reason.
And let me say again, where the president of Harvard is an individual and a citizen of the United States, absolutely innocent until proven guilty.
No wiggle room there.
The government, the federal government, Who can't explain why they won't even make their own governor and their own major mayor happy?
That has to be corruption.
It has to be.
Because there's no alternative reason given.
If they'd given us a reason, like, oh, this is good for the country, I know it's tough for your state, we'll try to work with you, something like that, then I would say, oh, that's a policy that maybe I don't agree with, But it's fully transparent, and at least we're having the right debate about it.
That's not happening.
There's no debate.
There's no debate at all.
Do you know what the Biden administration says?
The border is fine.
I don't even know what you're talking about.
They're actually gaslighting us.
But they're gaslighting their own party at the same time, and their own party knows it too.
Like they're making the states fail while they gaslight them.
All right.
So that's amazing.
You know, McCarthy, who had been the Speaker of the House, he quit, and now he's quitting the Senate itself.
And he, in an interview recently, he said he was quite proud of discriminating against white men in the Republican Party.
And in his work, to making sure that there were good candidates coming up in the party.
He said that he was supporting the ones who were not white men so that he could get the party to look more like the United States.
He said he was jealous of the Democrats because when they stand up they look like the country, which they do, and when Republicans stand up they look like basically some white country club.
Now he said that, I'm paraphrasing, but he said like a country bumpkin.
And so he was proud of his success in getting some non-white men into leadership.
So how does that hit you?
So they had, you know, one of the most important people in the Republican Party was out there actively discriminating against people who look like me.
Right.
Now, on one hand, I absolutely support making the Republican Party look like the rest of the country.
That'd be great.
I'm happy that, you know, there's more black support in the Republican Party for Trump.
That's all good.
But how hard do you have to work to make sure that white people don't succeed?
That's not exactly the most Republican thing I've ever heard.
Maybe there was another way to do it.
I don't know.
This doesn't go down well.
Doesn't go down well.
So, Matt Gaetz is a hero, because McCarthy was maybe not who you thought he was.
I can't support direct discrimination against Americans.
I don't care if he's a Republican.
Fuck that.
So, good riddance.
All right.
Apparently ESG funds are including a lot of military companies.
So I guess the ESG people, you know, trying to do what's right and save the country, save the world and, you know, save us from climate change and discrimination, basically make sure people are doing the right thing.
They don't seem to have a problem investing in military-industrial complex.
And even Elon Musk said in a post, delete ESG, prone to corruption.
Well, prone to more than corruption.
My God.
There's a Netflix series, maybe you saw it, about the Purdue Pharmaceuticals and their Oxycontin and how the government finally prosecuted them for their bad behavior.
Well, in the Netflix series, The lead investigator, who is in a way sort of the hero of the story, is played by a black woman.
In the real world, it was a white woman.
Now, it's one thing if a fictional Disney story wants to have shows that represent, you know, their public.
Seems like a good instinct.
But I think it's going a little too far when there's an actual white American hero that they had to turn black so that the audience would accept it better.
That's not cool.
That's not cool at all.
Yeah.
Yeah.
It's one thing to want, you know, to want your content to represent the customers.
It's another to change history.
Too far.
Yeah, that's too far.
It's not the biggest problem in the world, but it's a symbol too far.
Well, also from EndWokeness, as I said, one of my favorite current accounts on Axe, there's a Target store in the Bronx in which they don't allow teens anymore, and they can't enter without an adult.
So you've got to show your ID to show you're an adult, and you can bring a teen with you, but they can't come themselves.
The items are behind glass, the self-checkout is closed, and they're checking receipts.
Now, how do you love the fact that who they're blocking is teams?
Let me ask you this.
Do you think Target has a DEI group?
How would you like to be in the room when the DEI team at Target Finds out that the Bronx store is forbidding teens.
Do you think the DEI group is like, yeah, that's, that's cool.
Because we're not about, you know, young people.
You know, young people are excluded from lots of places.
No problem.
Do you think that the teens that they're talking about might often be black in the Bronx?
Do you think that this is Target's way?
of racial discrimination?
Well, they have a DEI group within their company, I'm sure.
Right?
Does anybody doubt that?
We don't doubt that they have a DEI group.
What is the DEI group doing about this?
Do you think the DEI group just raised their hands and said, no, you can't do that.
That's just another way to discriminate against black teenagers.
Because it is.
Let's be honest.
They are discriminating against black teenagers.
They're just calling it teens so they can get away with it.
How does that work?
See, I always assumed that DEI would end up eating itself.
It just wasn't really a sustainable idea.
It couldn't last.
This is a pretty good example.
Well, meanwhile, in Trump legal news, Trump on his side got some, I guess in court he got a famous Florida real estate agent, Lawrence Mones.
And this is funny.
Remember that the whole problem, at least in one of these cases, the problem is that Trump said Mar-a-Lago was worth, I don't know, tons of money.
But the court said, no, it's only worth $18 million.
And everybody laughed because you don't have to be a real estate expert to know it's worth more than $18 million.
Kind of obvious.
But here's what an actual expert said, an actual Florida real estate agent.
He testified the project But the property could be worth up to a billion dollars.
It's between three quarters of a billion and a billion dollars.
Now I'm not sure it is, because there are some restrictions on what you can do with it, so the restrictions matter.
Not that they couldn't ever be changed, but they are on there.
And apparently it's an agent, he compared the resort to the Taj Mahal.
Okay, this is where I started to suspect there was something up with this witness.
He compared it to the Taj Mahal and suggested that Trump's valuation of the property was appropriate and conservative.
It wasn't just appropriate, probably conservative.
And Moen said, oh, he's the one who actually sold Mar-a-Lago to Trump 15 years ago.
Okay, so he's the actual agent for the property.
And he said there are numerous potential buyers for such a prestigious property Ranging from tech billionaires such as Elon Musk to Bill Gates to quote kings and emperors and heads of state Now here's a question when you hear the testimony of this real estate agent who does it remind you of The does it remind you of anybody And not Trump.
I know it reminds you of Trump.
So I will stipulate it does remind you of Trump.
But somebody else.
Somebody else.
Somebody else in Trump's orbit.
Not me.
No.
Not a pundit.
Not a pundit.
I'm not talking about a pundit.
Somebody in Trump's... in his environment.
His doctor.
His doctor.
This real estate agent.
Just sounds like his doctor changed his name and testified about real estate.
You remember his doctor said that Trump is the healthiest human who ever walked the planet and probably would live to a thousand?
Yeah, I'm exaggerating, but it was something like that.
It is so funny that Trump got this guy to say it's worth a billion dollars and it's probably, you know, Trump underestimated it.
Let me say it again.
This is the real estate agent who sold Trump Mar-a-Lago.
Have you ever met a real estate agent?
Anybody know a real estate agent?
If you have ever, even once, just even once, if you're a real estate agent and you ever sold a multi-million dollar property to a billionaire, what would be the way you would deal with that billionaire in the future?
You would say anything that billionaire wanted you to say.
You know why?
He might buy something else.
He might buy something else.
And he might have friends.
He might have a friend who might ask him for a recommendation.
If Trump's friend asks him for a recommendation, how rich is that friend going to be?
He's going to be another billionaire.
What do real estate agents do to make money?
It's all word of mouth.
It's all word of mouth.
So, on one hand, I largely agree with the agent, you know, that the actual value is, you know, some multiple of what the core said.
So that part, that part's true.
But the level of hyperbole he brought to it is just enjoyable as entertainment.
Let's just say.
I think directionally what he said was accurate.
And it was a contribution to the case, contribution to justice.
I have no problem with the general thrust of his testimony.
But the fact that he went full Trump, he went full Trump hyperbole, was just wonderful.
I would like to see all of Trump's advisors give testimony to see if they all do this.
Like his accountant.
I'd love to see his barber.
Would you love to hear something from whoever does his hair?
Not only is his hair real, it is the finest hair I have ever cut.
Sometimes I will forget to cut a strand of hair.
I swear to God it will cut itself.
He has hair that is almost magical in its qualities.
It's growing thicker.
Usually when people age, their hair gets thinner.
Not his.
His is growing thicker over time.
His hair is getting better, and the color is sublime.
That's his barber.
Just in case he's ever asked to testify.
His hair is pure silk.
We think it's woven gold.
You thought it was orange, but it's actually strands of gold growing directly from his skin.
That's right.
All right, Sam Altman posted something I disagree with, but maybe he has a different definition of things.
He said, as you know, Sam Altman, head of the chat GPT AI situation.
He said, a good sign for the resilience and adaptability of people in the face of technological change.
He says the Turing test went whooshing by and everyone mostly went about their lives.
Meaning that AI has passed the Turing test.
If you don't know what that is, it's a test where you put the AI on one side of a curtain, you put a human on the other, you have them have a conversation, and then you ask the human, were you talking to a human on the other side of the curtain?
Was that an AI?
If the human can't tell and thinks it was a human on the other side of the curtain, not an AI, then it passes the Turing test.
Turing being a human being who came up with this idea.
Now, and Musk agreed.
He basically said it just whooshed by fast.
Now, here's what I think.
Do you believe that the Turing test could beat Sam Altman?
Do you believe that if you put Sam Altman on the other side of a curtain, that he would ever, even once, be uncertain about whether he was talking to a human or a machine, even once?
No.
No.
He would know what questions to ask in a heartbeat.
How about Elon Musk?
Because he said it also passed the Turing test.
Now let me say, first of all, I think there's more than one definition of the Turing test.
So there might be a lower bar definition that maybe it did pass.
But the larger question of, could you put me personally, or any of the people I mentioned, could you put me on the other side of a curtain?
And I couldn't tell it was AI?
No, not even close.
In my opinion, it's nowhere near the Turing test.
Does anybody disagree?
If you've used it, it's not even close to human responses.
You would know it wasn't a human on the first response.
I don't think there's a single thing AI has ever said to me that I couldn't identify as obviously not human.
So I guess I have a question.
Maybe I need to learn more about the Turing test.
Here's a good tip for you.
This is a good tip for life.
If you've got a strong opinion, but the people on the other side of it are Sam Altman and Elon Musk, you should ask yourself, what the fuck is wrong with your opinion?
Am I right?
If you said to yourself, I have a different opinion than Elon Musk and Sam Altman, therefore I'm probably right.
Okay, there's something wrong with you.
There's something wrong with your brain if you're thinking that way.
So here I am.
I absolutely think the Turing test is nowhere near being passed, but I'm looking at Sam Altman, who knows a lot more than I do about everything, but AI in particular, and Elon Musk, who knows a lot more than I do about, again, everything, but especially AI.
Why are they on the other side for me?
So the only thing I can think of, and I saw some hints at this, is that the Turing test has a more technical description that maybe AI has already passed.
But in the real world, not even close.
The fooling a human, not even close.
All right, but maybe.
So we're gonna go from the Turing test to, wait for it, I'm so proud of this, the Turley test.
Yeah, the Jonathan Turley test.
The Turley test, he's a attorney, a writer, great writer, you should follow him for sure.
And so he's a Democrat and a writer.
And if he says that a Democrat is in trouble legally, he probably is.
Because Turley is not going to make up some bullshit just because Republicans want to hear it.
That's not his deal.
He tells you, I'm a Democrat, always vote Democrat.
Well, I don't know if always, but you know, I vote Democrat.
But, you know, these Democrats broke the law.
Or, you know, these Republicans broke the law.
So he's, I find him a very clean opinion that just sort of hits the facts and yet the hyperbole is generally missing.
But here's what he says about the Hunter Biden and the Joe Biden situation.
As we're preparing for the Congress to vote on the impeachment inquiry, which again is not an impeachment, it's an inquiry to see if there's enough to have an impeachment.
But Turley says that the Turley test, which I just named and he probably doesn't like it at all, is clearly showing that the case is made already for impeachment or impeachment inquiry, to be specific.
The case is made plenty to at least get to the inquiry stage.
All right, here are some evidences that he gives.
First of all, did you know The courts have held that it doesn't matter if you as a politician personally receive money from a foreign country if your family member did.
Did you know that that's enough to consider it bad behavior and illegal in some cases?
Yeah.
So, what is the biggest defense that the Democrats say?
They say, oh yeah, maybe Hunter did some things You can't tie that to a crime that shows that Joe Biden benefited.
You don't need to.
That was never a requirement.
If the foreign country makes your daughter rich, or your wife rich, or your cousin rich, and that daughter, wife, cousin didn't do enough to earn that money, that's a bribe.
And the courts have upheld that, right?
So you don't get away with saying, oh, it was only a sodden Only Assad got money from China.
You don't even have to show that Hunter was paying Joe Biden's bills, which we know he was, but you don't even need to show that.
You just need to show that Hunter Biden got the money.
That's it.
And you've made your case.
All right.
Now, every case is different, but sort of as a general rule, it doesn't have to go directly to the politician.
All right.
What else?
It is now clear, says Turley, that Biden lied when he maintained as a candidate and later as president that he had no knowledge of his son's business dealings with foreign interests.
And he says even Hunter himself contradicted the president.
So now we have a clear lie that is a big one.
It affected the election, you know, his election, but it continues to affect things.
It's a pretty big deal.
That's one thing.
Turley says, it's also now clear that Joe Biden lied in denying that his son never made money in China.
Yes, he did.
A lot of money in China.
But, you know, again, lying is not illegal.
We're only talking about an impeachment inquiry.
We're not talking about going to jail.
Turley says, it's also clear that Hunter was engaged in raw influence peddling.
And this included threatening at least one Chinese businessman that his father was sitting next to him and would retaliate if he did not send millions to the Bidens.
So influence peddling, is that illegal?
I don't know.
I guess it depends how you do it.
But again, it's an impeachment inquiry, so it doesn't necessarily have to be illegal, I guess.
President Biden also lied when he claimed this week that he had not had any interactions with his son's business associates.
But there are emails, audiotapes, and testimony now disproving that claim.
So, the Turley test says that an impeachment inquiry, inquiry, just the inquiry part, looks justified.
What do you say?
How many of you agree Then an inquiry is justified.
And let me ask you this.
Would you feel the same if Trump had not been impeached on specious grounds?
Would you feel the same?
It's not just revenge, is it?
It's not just tit-for-tat?
You'd feel the same?
I see some no's.
Yeah.
So some people are being, I think some people are being a little more I don't want to say honest.
A little more direct about the fact that it's revenge.
Because revenge has a value, right?
Mutually assured destruction.
You know, revenge is not mindless.
Revenge has an actual social purpose, which is, maybe you got away with it for a little while, but somebody's gonna get revenge, so maybe you should have thought about not doing that.
All right, well, we'll keep an eye on that.
You know those pictures of the stripped-down, alleged Hamas fighters?
And people were saying, I'm not sure all of them are Hamas fighters.
They might be civilians who just got, you know, scooped up in the sweep.
Well, according to, I think, Israel Radio, military radio, 40 out of 100 were terrorists.
So of the 100 shown in the picture, That 40 or so were Hamas terrorists.
Now, do you believe that?
Do you believe that number?
Why would you?
Why would you believe anything coming from a military in the middle of a war?
Do you believe the Hamas death toll?
Do you believe that Hamas has an accurate death toll of civilians?
Why would you believe it?
Why would you believe that?
If I can tell you anything, don't believe anything the combatants say during the war.
I mean, maybe after the war, you know, when a lot of people have talked about it and nobody's at risk of going to jail anymore, you know, years have passed, you've debated it, a few whistleblowers came.
Maybe, you know, maybe someday you'll know the truth.
But today?
Do you know the truth today?
No.
But, Let me ask you this.
Do you think there were no terrorists in the group?
Do you think there were zero terrorists in all those hundred fighting-age men in Hamas, in Gaza?
No.
No.
Of course, of course some of them were terrorists.
If you don't know how many were terrorists, was the treatment of them legitimate?
You don't know how many there are?
Probably legitimate.
Yeah.
Because how else are you going to find the real ones?
You'd have to control them, keep them in one place, search them.
It's a process.
So I don't know that it was 40 out of 100, maybe it was 90 out of 100, maybe it was 10 out of 100, but it's the same thing.
So again, I think it was a mistake by the Israeli folks.
If they allowed that photo to get out, And they knew it?
That's probably a mistake.
Separately, I did see that polling shows support for Hamas is growing.
Were you aware of that?
Support for Hamas outside of Israel in the United States, you know, obviously we're anti-Hamas.
But support for Hamas worldwide is growing.
Are you surprised?
I'm not.
I'm not surprised a bit.
Because it's really easy to say that the army that's destroying a civilian city is the bad guy.
It's pretty easy to say that.
Now, it's more complicated than that, and I don't know what options they have.
Separately, we've seen that in Gaza, the ratio of civilian deaths are higher than we've seen in other military conflicts.
Does that sound right?
You think the ratio of civilians dying in Gaza is higher than the ratio of civilians dying in other urban conflicts?
Well, I would assume it is.
I would assume it's higher.
Because I'm not aware of any other urban conflict where the bad guys were using the good guys as human shields.
How can you really compare a human shield situation to a non-human shield situation?
It's not exactly apples and oranges.
So, of course, I would expect to be an unprecedented high number of civilian deaths because it's unusual to have the bad guys want their own people to die.
That's what's different.
Generally, let's say the German Army, there's no part of the German Army who wanted Dresden to be fireballed.
None.
Zero people in Germany thought that was a good idea.
But Hamas actually says, you know, the more destruction of the civilians, the more popular we become.
It's working out great.
Separately, we hear that Israel is trying to focus a lot of their attention on finding the leader, I guess the military leader, who's still on the ground somewhere in a tunnel.
Now, they've interrogated enough Hamas people interrogated so that they have an idea that the rank-and-file Hamas fighters are not exactly on the same page as their own leader.
Meaning that their leader definitely wants everybody to die, you know, no compromise.
Sounds crazy.
Whereas the actual Hamas fighters are saying something closer to, you know, we're not going to win this.
Maybe we should not die.
So there does seem to be a split between the general feeling of the fighters, which is you have no chance, maybe you should consider surrendering, and the leader who wants them all to die and himself too, maybe.
So, Israel is thinking that if they can take out the leader, or a leader or two, that it would be far easier to get the fighters to quit, because they wouldn't be responding to a crazy guy.
But that feels a little optimistic, doesn't it?
I've got a feeling that the top five Hamas people are all crazy.
Like, are you telling me that, oh yeah, the top guy is crazy, and number two's kind of crazy too, but by the time you get to the third through the fifth, they're pretty reasonable guys.
I don't think so, but I would do the same, again, I would do the same thing Israel's doing.
I would certainly Try to take out the leaders and see if it made a difference.
I'm not as optimistic as they are.
Maybe it would hurt their morale.
Maybe.
Worth a try.
All right.
Russia is, of course, complaining about the Gaza situation, as you'd expect.
But there's a little bit of uncertainty here.
Had you heard that Israel is pumping seawater into the tunnels?
Do you believe that's happening?
Because I saw a report that they're only talking about it and preparing for it.
I think I reported it.
I saw it in social media, but I think the answer is they're not doing it.
And they might not.
Meaning that they're asking a lot of the right questions about whether or not they should do it.
Now, they do have the pumps.
The news says They built the infrastructure to flood them.
There's video of them doing it.
Really.
Send me that video if you have it.
So here's the conversation that's happening.
If the seawater in the tunnels gets into the aquifer, they're basically making Gaza unlivable because there won't be any fresh water.
And it doesn't take much seawater to get into your larger pool of your aquifer, your freshwater, before it's all spoiled.
It doesn't take much.
And the tunnels, there's almost no way you can keep the tunnels from getting into the aquifer.
So, you're really talking about a conscious decision to make Gaza unlivable, essentially.
Or, I would say, unlivable without Israel being in control.
Because if Israel's in control, maybe they build a desalinization plant.
If Israel's not in control, maybe they don't let anybody build anything.
So I think the only way that it will be repopulated is probably with Israel being in charge.
I think that's obvious at this point.
All right, George Soros allegedly has funneled more than $50 million to a network of Iran-sympathizing groups.
Uh, who have apparently been quite influential.
What is up with that?
Why would Soros be funding, to a large degree, pro-Iranian factions?
George Soros.
George Soros.
What's up with that?
You know, I've said this a million times, that Unless Alex Soros can handle a tough interview in which he explains why they're doing what they're doing, I think Elon Musk's working assumption sounds right.
And I think I was pushing back on that.
Remember Musk said that Soros might just hate humanity?
Because you look at what he does and you can't come up with another idea of why he's doing it.
I can't.
And I'm pretty imaginative.
Like, I can imagine, you know, ways that anything could be explained.
Like, yeah, imagine this.
Like, I don't have any working hypothesis to explain any of this.
Except that it's actually just pure evil.
Now, evil, I don't believe in evil, but I believe that people could be doing bad stuff.
But why is his son doing it?
Like, see, that was my problem.
If you assume there's something wrong with Soros Sr., but he's sort of, you know, retired now and his son is running it, how in the world could that specific mental illness be transferred to the child?
How does that work?
I mean, that makes everything a little sketchy.
Now, it's possible that the moment the senior dies, the son will change.
That's possible.
In fact, I think it's like 50% possible, because there's no way he's going to go against his dad, you know, until the will is sorted out.
You're going to, you're going to at least wait until the will is, you know, the estate is settled, and then maybe, maybe change a little after that.
But before you find out if you can inherit how many billions?
If you had tens of billions of dollars on the line, and all you had to do is just shut up for three more years, because, you know, his father's not gonna last three more years.
You just had to shut up, and you'd make tens of billions of dollars.
That's a pretty strong incentive.
So I wouldn't rule out that Alex Soros would end up changing the policies radically as soon as he's in charge.
Because I think it would protect him, and it would protect the Democrats.
In my opinion, the Democrat Party is being destroyed by Soros.
Let me say it another way.
If there were no George Soros, there's no way Trump would be leading in the polls.
Am I right?
Do you think the Democrats know that?
Do you think Democrats know that George Soros is the reason they're going to lose the presidency?
Because on the Republican side, it's crystal clear, isn't that?
If you said, what is the reason that Trump will whip?
It's immigration, and crime in the cities, and, you know, foreign wars.
So, to me, George Soros is destroying the Democrat Party, accidentally.
Do they know that?
Do you think they know that?
I mean, seriously, do you think they know that?
Do you think that Nancy Pelosi knows that Soros is destroying their entire party?
Of course she does.
Of course she does.
Do you know why?
Because she's fucking Nancy Pelosi.
You could not like her for any variety of reasons, but she's brilliant in terms of politics, and she knows what everything is.
She's got the big picture.
She knows the whole thing.
Of course he knows.
But, I don't know, maybe individuals are getting money in a way we don't know about.
But I do think Alex Soros needs to answer the question, are you evil?
Imagine having to answer that question.
You know, it's one thing everybody calls everybody a racist and a dictator and stuff, but we discount that stuff.
It's hyperbole.
But if Alex Soros gives a major interview to any Any right-leading or even objective source, they get to ask that question.
Are you basically working for Satan?
Now, I don't believe in Satan, but a lot of the country does, and they would like to hear the answer to that question.
Are you working for Satan?
I think the answer is no, but why doesn't anybody ask?
It's not my framing, but somebody's going to wonder.
But you can ask the question in the secular way, which is, can you explain how this is good for anybody?
Just make your argument.
Because we don't know.
We don't know how this could be good for anybody.
We don't understand it.
Just make your case.
So I don't think you'll see it.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, apparently I've been yakking long enough.
