My book Reframe Your Brain, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/3bwr9fm8
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Geothermal Energy, Bedrock Energy, Australian X Censorship, Elon Musk, X Free Speech, Jeff Clark, Profit Driven Wars, Judge Cannon Unredacted Docs, Anti-Trump Lawfare, TicTok Self-Harm, Restrictionists, Fake Crowds, Crowds On Demand, Safety Moms, UCLA DEI Plagiarism, Worldview Persuasion, DEI Bias Impact, Anti-White TikToc Videos, Female Doctors, President Biden, 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
I'm Scott Adams, and I'm pretty sure there's never been a finer time in your entire life.
Sure, the birth of your children, that was cool, too.
Maybe your marriage, but this is even better than that.
And if you'd like to take it up to a level that your brain can't even conceive of, well, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank of gel, a cistern, a Kentian jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine, at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sippin' Happens Now.
Go!
Oh, that's good sippin'.
That's good sippin'.
Well, I would like to start with a correction and announcement.
A correction.
Because I've been a bad person and I used a wrong term online.
And now the rest of my day will be explaining why I used that wrong term.
The wrong term was natural selection, when I meant to say survival of the fittest.
So let me explain.
So there's been a conversation about whether evolution is true, because Tucker said he doesn't believe in it.
And some people who do believe in it, I've been interacting with others and tried to figure out what's going on, Brett Weinstein being one of them.
And one of the things I said, I'm going to correct it a little bit, which is I said that natural selection was debunked by evolutionists.
Now that didn't happen.
So I think I was, I just confused two terms when I wrote it.
What I meant was survival of the fittest.
So, when I was in school, I was taught that survival of the fittest explained why animals and creatures changed, because they were always competing with something, and only the ones who could compete the best won.
Well, later, my understanding is that that was replaced with a more nuanced idea, which is that Um, it's not survival of the fittest.
It's just survival of the things that survived.
Now that's my own take on it.
Does that make sense?
So things survived, not just because they're the best at it, but sometimes they didn't have any competition.
Like if you were a bunch of birds in the Galapagos Islands, well, nothing was going to kill you.
So you could grow a weird looking beak as long as you could eat and you could change colors as long as nobody cared.
So I think it went from competition, survival of the fittest, to just survival of the things that survived.
So that natural selection still allows that things would change over time.
My complaint with evolution is based on the fact that I'm sure we're a simulation.
And if we're a simulation, the history is all made up.
So I don't disagree with it on purely scientific terms, but rather I think that reality itself is different than the assumptions about natural selection.
Anyway, so that's my correction.
Natural selection is part of evolution, but survival of the fittest got tweaked a few decades ago.
Anyway, we were just as sure about survival of the fittest before that changed.
Here's what I think.
Let me just give you the big picture on evolution.
If evolution is pretty much exactly what the biologists say it is, and let's say evolution is a mature field, and by the way, I want to make sure that all of you know that in scientific terms, when they say theory, they mean it's proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
Did all of you know that?
That the word theory in common conversation means it's not proven, but if you're a scientist, theory means it's definitely proven.
How many of you knew that?
That the word actually means closer to the opposite in common conversation than it does when you're talking about science.
Most of you know that?
Because one of the best arguments, or not best, one of the common arguments I hear is that evolution is called a theory.
It's the theory of evolution.
The word theory means fact in a scientific context.
So it's called a hypothesis if you're not sure.
It's called a theory when you're sure.
Now that doesn't mean that it can't change.
It just means that scientists don't really have any doubts anymore.
They've tested it and retested it and looked at every window, etc.
So if we are not a simulation, They've certainly probably got a good grasp on things.
That's what people would say.
Now, what would it take for you to believe that evolution is true?
Well, if it is true, and if evolution is just the way the biologists say, you know, the dominant group of biologists, then it would really stand alone.
Because I'm pretty sure climate science is bullshit.
I'm pretty sure nutrition science has been bullshit for most of my life.
I think that physicists have a lot to explain about string theory.
String theory sounds a little bit like it might be bullshit.
How about the science of psychology?
Do you think psychology is nailing it?
No, it looks like mostly bullshit to me.
How about medical science?
How's the doctoring been in the last several years?
Are the medical experts nailing it?
No.
No, they're not, really.
How about data science?
I wouldn't call that a science per se, but are the data scientists nailing it?
So when you see data, it's pretty accurate, isn't it?
No.
So if evolution is what the biologists say it is, and I'm not giving an argument against it, I'm just saying that Unless we're, if we're not a simulation, then it's a pretty good take.
Doesn't mean it's true, but certainly is backed up with by a lot of science.
And if evolution is just what they say, it would be the only science that's working.
All the rest appear to be primarily bullshit.
Now, let me be more precise.
I don't think science is mostly bullshit.
I'm using a little bit of hyperbole.
I think that the things that rise to our level of caring and become, you know, let's say they become big social issues on top of being scientific, as soon as they interfere with our real world, they turn to bullshit.
That's a pretty good rule.
If there's somebody who's studying salamanders somewhere, And they've come up with a theory about salamanders?
Eh, it's probably pretty good.
I mean, I'd bet for it, not against it.
But if they come up with a theory that says your job is going to be affected in one way or another, probably not.
It's probably bullshit and somebody's trying to steal your money using science as their club.
So if it matters in the big world, it's probably bullshit.
If it's something that nobody heard of and a scientist is doing it in private, might be true.
Yeah.
It's only when it becomes something like climate and what you eat and string theory and psychology where you have to go to a therapist and, you know, whether you get a shot or not, it matters.
As soon as it matters in the real world, it's bullshit.
I wish it weren't the case, but it's very clear the pattern.
Well, speaking of all those things, there's a new study.
And do I believe new studies in science?
Yes, when they agree with what I want to hear.
So here's a new study.
Being sedentary and sitting more than six hours a day is bad for your heart.
So you'll have greater fatalities if you're sitting around all day.
There is one exception.
The exception they found was if you drink a lot of coffee.
It completely eliminates the health risks of sitting around.
Now, do you believe this one?
Do you believe that coffee cures sedentary?
I don't believe this.
I don't believe this, but I want to.
Since I want to believe it, I'm going to say, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Because according to this, I've saved a lot of lives.
To the extent that I've caused you to drink more coffee, because my show is called that, I've literally saved lives.
But only, only, if science is true.
Which it isn't.
So I'm not going to take any victory laps on this, but maybe.
Who knows?
As long as it agrees with me, I'm fine with it.
How many of you remember a weird prediction I made a long time ago?
Uh, years and years and years ago, I said that the most important technology for the future was... Does anybody remember what I said?
Many years ago, the most important technology for the future is... I want to see if anybody remembers.
Holes.
Holes.
Right.
So do some of you remember me saying that?
I want to make sure I'm not like hallucinating or something.
Yeah.
I think some of you remember it.
I probably said it, I don't know, 15 years ago or something.
Here's what I meant.
There's an incredible amount of energy and resources under the ground.
It's just hard to get to.
If you could figure out a better way to dig a hole, you could do underground farming, you could build, it'd be easier to put utilities in, it'd be easier to build communities, easier to build underground transportation.
I mean, all kinds of things.
Yeah, but you can mostly get to the geothermal energy below the Earth.
If you get to geothermal, then it's basically almost unlimited clean energy.
And you don't have to go very far, because it's probably close to where you are.
Well, sure enough, it turns out that Texas is becoming a A geothermal center, because I guess they changed some laws to make it a little easier for geothermal people.
But there's a company called Bedrock Energy, new startup, and they've got, they use high-powered radio waves to drill through hard rocks to get down to the good stuff, the energy below the earth.
And it's just one of a number of companies who are figuring out innovative ways to make a hole.
So there it is.
Yeah.
The, the entire, uh, you know, energy business or reason for having wars overseas, you know, it's all about energy.
Most of our wars, I think are, you know, energy related or at least financial.
So this is like a big, big, big, big, big deal.
If any one of these startups works and it turns out that this company can make a hole really efficiently, that changes everything.
It'll be one of my best predictions of all time that holes are the most important technology of the future.
Holes.
All right.
If you wondered if we live in a simulation and you're looking for proof, every day I give you more proof, but here it is.
In the real world, we're asked to believe that Donald Trump is in a trial that involves a porn star.
And that witness, David Pecker, apparently is going to be testifying for a second day, even though he doesn't seem to be directly related to the charges.
And all I'm going to say is that if the district attorney is trying to grab Trump by the pecker, you live in a simulation.
Can I, can I just let that one sit there for a while?
Yeah.
They're trying to grab him by the pecker.
That clearly were a simulation.
There's no way that happens on its own.
All right.
And, of course, the big part of the story about the Trump and the porn star is a gag order.
I've never heard the phrase gag more often than I did with the Stormy Daniels story.
Now, how is that happening accidentally?
Confirmed.
Confirmed.
This is a simulation.
Well, Australia, as you know, has some new laws about online censorship, and they've got some crazy woman who is an American, apparently, in charge of censoring stuff on platforms.
Now, as you know, it's not Australia working alone.
They are suspected to be, according to, let's say, the Mike Benz Theory of the World, Where the US government gets other countries that we work with and other NGOs and stuff to do their dirty work that they're not legally allowed to do, such as censoring Americans.
But if Australia censors X and they make it somehow stick worldwide, then they've effectively censored an American company, but America didn't do it.
Oh, it's not our fault.
Australia did that when we asked them to do it.
So we don't know the details of this specific case, but it is a general model.
That our government asks other countries to do the things that we can't do legally to our own citizens.
And so there's now a battle between Australia and the X platform.
As, uh, Elon Musk, uh, wittily noted that the fact that Australia's, uh, targeting X in particular is cause the other platforms did whatever they wanted.
So Axe is the only one that said they wouldn't censor what Australia wants them to censor, which means Australia has certified Axe as the only place that has free speech, which is what Musk said.
And he's right.
The fact that they got all the other companies to change their censoring policies means that Axe is the only free speech platform.
And Australia is trying to take them down and basically put them out of business.
By, you know, jaw-boning them and, you know, attacking them, etc.
And here's what I think.
I think we should reconsider being allies with Australia.
Because if we think that freedom of speech is our bedrock right, and it's the one that protects the other ones along with the Second Amendment, if they get rid of their own guns, which they did, Becoming a cautionary tale to the rest of us that, you know, basically they can be completely abused now because they have no self-defense.
And they try to bring that to America.
We should rethink being allies because my allies don't try to ruin my free speech.
That's not my allies.
Now I get the allies don't always agree, but they don't go after my most cherished personal right.
Right?
If we were agreeing about, you know, the import of Pomegranates.
I'd be like, okay, that's just normal stuff allies bicker about.
If, you know, they wanted to buy our best submarines, but we didn't want to sell it to them for some reason.
Well, that's just, that's what allies do.
They, they negotiate that stuff.
But when I've got an ally, an ally, an ally is trying to remove my freedom of speech, essentially.
I mean, I realize I'm speaking in a, in a general way, but the practical Impact of it would be to cripple the last remaining free speech platform in America.
Nope.
I'm sorry, Australians.
You can't be my fucking friend and try to take away my freedom of speech.
Doesn't work.
Doesn't work.
Now, I will negotiate about pomegranates.
We can talk about, you know, NATO.
But no, you don't get to be my fucking friend if you're telling me to shut up.
Period.
I'm not going to travel there, I'm not going to give you a dime, I'm not going to support you in any way.
And in fact, if your fucking country gets attacked, I'm not going to be advocating that we protect you.
We'd have to, because of NATO.
But I'm not going to be in favor of it.
No, fuck you.
Fuck your whole goddamn fucking country.
Leave us the fuck alone, Australia.
Leave us the fuck alone.
Get your goddamn censoring fucking fingers away from our American throats.
Stay the fuck away from us.
If you want to be Chinese, go ahead.
We'll let you be Chinese, because they're going to conquer your fucking little island in 10 seconds.
Leave us the fuck alone if you want us to defend you when the big boats come your way.
Leave us the fuck alone.
So that's my last word on that.
Jeff Clark is pointing out that the latest talking points on the Democrats is that if Trump is convicted, he couldn't get a job as a mall employee.
And apparently, at least three entities said it, that Jeff Clark picked up on.
And yes, that does mean that there is a central chief anti-Trump propagandist, as Jeff Clark says.
Literally, they organize their talking points.
Now, I spend a ton of time interacting with people on the right.
I've never heard of any, like, organized talking points.
Have you?
I've definitely heard people say things that other people copy, if they like it.
You know, if it's a good meme or just a good phrasing or something.
So that definitely happens.
But I haven't seen any organized, here's what all of you should say.
Has anybody ever seen that in the Republican world?
It might exist, but I don't see it.
Just wondering if that exists.
Caitlin Collins of CNN says the world spent more on military costs and weapons in 2023 than it had in 35 years before that, driven in part by the war in Ukraine and the threat of an expanded Russian invasion, according to some independent analysis.
Do you have any doubt that our wars are driven by profit?
Does anybody think that this war is really driven by some sense of defending the country and defending Europe and defending democracy and freedom?
It doesn't look like it's even slightly legitimate.
Yeah.
To me, it looks 95% profit and 5% military advantage of some kind, I guess.
Australia is now part of NATO?
Is that true?
I'm seeing that somebody in the comments said Australia is not part of NATO.
Because it's not North Atlantic?
Are they?
Oh, there's a different treaty, right?
Are they part of a different treaty?
Ceto OK, so we have a we have a different military alliance.
All right.
Same thing.
Thank you for that correction.
Not members of NATO, but members of CETO.
It's the same problem either way.
But thank you for that correction.
Well, we found out more about the Mar-a-Lago boxes and the Jack Smith thing.
And I keep trying to read all of the... So there's a news story that the judge said a bunch of stuff had to be unredacted.
So for the first time, we're seeing documents that had been heavily redacted, and we didn't know why.
So here's why.
Scott is confident in his ignorance.
That's everybody.
Everybody who's confident is confident in their ignorance.
Here's my suggestion to you.
I always tell you that I always try to set my confidence level at above its actual, you know, what would be realistic.
Now, I tell you that directly because it's a life strategy.
You should always be a little more confident than you think is maybe legitimate.
I model that every day.
It's very intentional.
And if you're picking up on it and saying, oh, you're very confident in your ignorance, I'm also confident in my incompetence.
Intentionally.
So I'm more confident about things I can do than I can really do, and more confident about my intelligence and my knowledge than I know is true.
Now I'd like to ask you, how is your strategy of thinking you're a fucking idiot, is that working out for you?
Because if it is, I'll take your advice.
Like thinking that you're a worthless piece of shit, is that lighting you up every day?
You're like, I'm at least better than this cartoonist guy because I know I'm a piece of shit, but he seems to act like he doesn't even know it.
So that makes me a little bit superior.
And I think I'm going to need to note this in the middle of his show.
Yeah.
So thank you for that.
Uh, we'd like that good life advice from a loser.
How to, how to think you're a piece of shit and how to scream it in the middle of a live broadcast.
Because that's the thing we needed to know right then.
All right.
Anyway, Grok tried to summarize this whole Jack Smith, Mar-a-Lago, redacted, unredacted situation.
And honestly, I didn't understand the whole thing.
I think you'd really have to, you know, marinate in it a little bit before you understood it.
So I'm going to read Grok's summary on X.
So the AI Grok summarizes some of these stories.
So just know it's coming from AI.
Okay?
Judge Aileen Cannon.
Recent order.
I love that there's a judge named Cannon.
Isn't Cannon a great name for a judge?
Look out for the Cannon.
I love that name.
All right.
Aileen Cannon's recent order to unredact key evidence about that Mar-a-Lago boxes.
And the unredacted documents, now this is according to Grok, show the Biden administration's involvement in developing a criminal case against Trump.
Wait a minute.
If that's true, that would be supporting everything.
I'm just reading a comment.
Somebody screamed about me.
Let me ask this.
How many of you have had a bad situation in which my name came up and some Democrats started screaming about me?
How many of you had that situation?
Have you had trouble when my name comes up?
Because I've heard it a number of times.
That people just go batshit crazy when they hear my name put in a sentence.
Look at all the yeses.
Oh my goodness.
Now, how many of the people who scream and get upset if you mention my name, how many of them know anything about me?
I'll bet none.
They probably don't know anything about me.
If they believed the news, they wouldn't know anything about me.
My wife is not fond of you.
I've chummed the waters with your name.
Well, if you haven't tried it, you should try it.
Especially the batshit crazy woman segment, I think would be very fun for you to try it.
Anyway, so back to these unredacted documents.
They do show, according to Grok, they show that the Biden administration coordinated these cases.
That would make Trump right when he says these are Biden-coordinated cases.
If they coordinated one of them and the other DAs have some connection to the White House, it's looking strongly like Biden is trying to take out his competitor, which, well, we all knew.
I mean, I think you all knew that.
But to have some documented evidence of it is a new step.
It also contradicted previous claims by showing that Trump had previously cooperated with the National Archives.
So the claim that he wasn't cooperating with them, there was a document in which they redacted evidence that he had cooperated with them.
Just hold that in your mind.
Hold that in your mind for a moment.
The main complaint is that he wasn't cooperating.
There was a document that suggested he had cooperated, more than maybe had been presented, and they redacted it.
Do you think there was any reason for redacting it, other than it was good for Trump?
Of course not.
Of course not.
They redacted that right in front of us.
I'm going to say it again.
Right in front of us.
They did that right in front of us.
They're trying to put Trump in prison on bullshit right in front of us.
And let me just say it again.
One day in prison and the social contract is ripped up.
I don't know what that means and I don't, I don't recommend any violence, but the rules are completely off if you put them in jail.
I mean, I think everybody's just sort of, Going along with it because they're not ready to, like, get their pitchforks and torches and do anything.
And we don't know exactly what to do.
But I'll tell you, if you put them in jail, everybody knows what to do.
That will answer all of my questions.
The social contract, totally gone.
All the rules are gone after that.
So if they want to make that move, just know it's really unpredictable.
It could work.
They could end up just ruling forever and put Trump in jail and put anybody in jail who complains about it.
Could totally work.
But it's very unpredictable.
And unpredictable means in every possible way.
So I don't need to be more detailed than that.
Let's just say it'll be unpredictable in every possible way.
And you really don't want that.
There's no way to know how that ends up.
So, yes, the President, or at least Trump, is being railroaded.
It is a witch hunt.
It is an illegitimate process.
They're doing it right in front of us.
They're barely trying to hide it.
And there's concern that if Trump actually got back in office, That, uh, some of his critics would be put in jail and they certainly should be.
Yeah.
The, the things they're doing are clearly criminal.
There's clearly treasonous.
They're clearly insurrectionists.
It's clearly, um, non-democratic process.
So I think, yeah, there, there are some big name people who literally need to be in jail.
Um, whenever that's possible.
Speaking of Biden, um, Russia and China.
It's been reported to have stopped using the US dollar in their mutual trade.
Now, I suppose that's okay as long as both of their currencies stay somewhat stable enough, I guess.
I have a hard time knowing if this is a big deal or not.
You know, it is a big deal if the U.S.
dollar becomes no longer the preferred reserve currency, you know, the thing that makes it safe to trade.
If they feel safe enough without it, it could be a problem.
Could make the value of the dollar plunge, I suppose.
Keep an eye on that.
If that's what happens, then Biden would certainly be the worst president of all time, because he would be presiding over almost the total destruction of the country, if that happens.
Well, there are some new lawsuits about TikTok allegedly convincing kids to commit self-harm.
I'll just use that word, the self-harm word.
And let's say lethal self-harm.
And there's a parent who believes that their child, a teenager, learned on TikTok Or was encouraged on TikTok to do lethal self-harm.
And there's some other lawsuits about other platforms.
Let's see.
There's a, separately, there's two tribal nations to sue TikTok, MetaSnap and Google saying that their platforms were addictive and dangerous by design and was increasing the suicide rates, et cetera.
But here's the problem.
I don't believe there's any way to win a case.
About an individual.
I don't believe that you can show that TikTok made any one person kill themselves.
Because it would be correlation, not causation.
You wouldn't be able to prove the causation.
You would just say, well, people who have these thoughts look for that kind of content.
So, you know, one caused the other.
It wasn't that the content caused the action.
And that would be, I think that would be sufficient.
That I wouldn't expect a jury to agree that causation had been proven.
However, at a population level, it's different.
If you could show that at a population level, people who use certain platforms were more likely to do certain things, that might get you a lot closer to maybe not proving causation, but proving it well enough that you could win a lawsuit, because you just need a majority.
You don't need 100% of people to agree.
So yeah, I don't think the individual lawsuits are going to win, but there is a, there is a way to know how dangerous this by looking at a population level.
There's a new word I'm seeing be used, uh, immigration restrictionists.
So people who want less immigration are now called, I saw this in the Hill, uh, restrictionists.
Why do you think that's the new word, a restrictionist?
Why do they need a new word?
Well, what if it was obvious to everyone involved that immigration has gotten out of control, and that for the defense of the homeland, all patriots believe it should be dialed back?
So one way you could say it is, the people, the patriots who want to protect the homeland would like immigration to be more controlled.
Would that be fair?
The patriots who want to protect the homeland want less immigration.
But no, the Hill calls it, they would be restrictionists.
Restrictionists.
What does a restrictionist sound like to you?
A restrictionist.
At a government level, if somebody's restricting you, what are they doing?
Are they taking your freedom?
Are they taking your democracy?
Because it sounds a little like they're taking your freedom.
Huh.
That's the sort of thing a dictator does.
Dictators do that, right?
Fascists take your freedom.
And I told you the other day that something like, I don't know, 10 years ago, I'm not sure when, the online definition of fascist changed to say right wing.
They actually changed the definition of a word to make it sound Republican.
That really happened.
Like, honest to God, they changed the definition of a word for political reasons.
Like in the dictionary!
Like dictionary.com.
Because it used to say stuff like, you know, like a dictator, leader, and the government's working with the big corporations.
And they can often have a racist agenda as well.
But it turned into usually right-wing.
I don't even know if it is usually right-wing, but I know that's not the important part.
You know, the important part's all the other stuff.
Nobody would care if you're right-wing if you didn't do all the fascist stuff.
They're pretty different.
If somebody calls you a restrictionist, you can call them a filthy cunt.
Because I think that would be a similar kind of insult.
I think if somebody uses the restrictionist word on you, you can pull out the C word.
Even on live TV.
I would do it on live TV.
Honestly, I would.
Because if somebody calls you that, they're trying to paint you into a box where you can be acted against physically.
It's a physical safety risk if you let people call you a restrictionist, which makes you think somebody's taking your democracy away.
Yeah.
Call those people patriots and I'll be okay with you.
Or just be, how about just citizens?
Why not just call them citizens with a different opinion?
When did that stop working?
Why can't we just say, well, you group have this opinion, this group has that opinion.
And how about that?
No, we have to put an insulting name on them.
They're restrictionists.
So Biden had his find people moment.
He said, and I quote, Biden said, I condemn the anti-Semitic protests.
And then he added, I also condemn those who don't understand what's going on with the Palestinians.
Thus making some moral equivalence between Hamas and Israel, which reminded some people of the fine people situation.
The difference being that Trump never said the fine people thing.
it was a hoax.
And so this is sort of Trump's perfect third act.
Because Trump was blamed of making a moral equivalence when in fact he was just talking about different people.
And he said specifically, you know, I disavow the white supremacists.
So Trump did not make a moral equivalence.
He did the opposite.
He said, I disavow you people.
That's the opposite of the moral equivalence.
Where Biden said, you know, they both have a point.
You know, you really have to see both sides of this.
So he did, there are fine people on both sides.
He actually did it without using fine people word.
So it's kind of the perfect Trump third act because you had to get rid of the fine people hoax and, and, you know, make that a Biden thing, which is now a thing.
And, uh, it's kind of perfect.
It destroyed, uh, Biden's entire 2020 campaign platform.
And caused a lot of people to say that the fine people thing was a hoax, which now they do refer to.
I saw the RNC posted and they just called the fine people thing a hoax.
You know, now it's just common knowledge among at least the right.
It didn't used to be.
And by the way, I think, I think I might've helped a little bit in making sure that at least the Republicans know that that's a hoax, which they all seem to know.
Joel Pollack was writing about this in Breitbart.
So if you want to see it in all its beautiful glory, I recommend you to that article.
All right.
Saw a post by Michael Oxford, who found a group called Crowds on Demand.
So they actually advertise and you can hire them to create a fake protest or a fake crowd to do anything.
Now, do you think that the Hamas protesters are organic?
Or do you think they're organized by somebody that the protesters even are not aware of who organized them?
I don't believe there are any organic protests in the United States.
I believe that we are so non-protesty That unless somebody says, all right, we're going to have to like just hire somebody to organize these people because they're not going to just do it on their own spontaneously.
I think that all the major protests from BLM to Antifa to this one to Wall Street, all of them, I think every one of them are fake.
They're all organized and they're not representing necessarily the will of too many people.
Yeah.
So we certainly know that most of them are organized.
I would assume these are too.
I don't know that they're organized with this group Crowds on Demand, but once you know that that's a thing, it's pretty easy to imagine that at least the organizers are paid.
Probably.
By somebody.
All right.
The Washington Times reports that there's a new class of voters called Safety Moms.
And they're moving toward Trump because they're worried about crime and the open borders.
So the safety moms are moving toward Trump.
Okay, let's do a review of who's moving toward Trump.
So he's got black voters.
He's got men.
He's got Hispanic moving toward him.
And now he has women.
So, we're meant to believe that every demographic group is moving towards Trump.
All of them.
And Trump is leading by a lot on policy.
If you look at the policy preferences, it's not even close.
It's Trump all the way down the top five policy important things.
So, Trump is trouncing every demographic group and every policy.
And at the top level, he's tied.
How is that possible?
So at the national polls that, you know, just show the national preference, he's tied.
Now, before you say, Scott, Scott, Scott, let me mansplain the Electoral College and how only the swing states matter and only the Electoral College matters.
Shut up!
I know.
I know, but it still tells you something if the national polls are tied, but all of the subcategories are clearly and unambiguously moving in one direction.
That's not possible, unless there's somebody they're not telling us about, some group that's massively moving toward Biden that had never been there before.
And they're not going to mention that?
Do you think nobody would mention that?
If people, if there was, if there were any demographic group, any group that was moving toward Biden, you don't think that would be a headline?
Of course it would.
So every demographic group and every policy is pro-Trump and they're tied at the national level.
Which is different than the electoral college and only the swing states matter.
I have to say that for the dumb people who are listening.
So, I don't know.
There's something going on.
I don't know what it is.
Something going on.
Yeah.
Anyway, Christopher Ruffo is still killing it and working with Luke Rosiak.
The two of them, I guess they found that the DEI director of UCLA's School of Medicine, is a major plagiarist, like really major plagiarist, as in the parts that weren't plagiarized didn't even look like she was qualified to be a sixth grader.
But massive plagiarization, who allegedly stole thousands of words from 10 other papers to fraudulently get a PhD.
Paid $140,000 per year.
paid $140,000 per year.
And this comes, as Rufo says, comes after Harvard's DEI hire president Claudine Gay resigned for serial plagiarism.
and And Harvard's DEI chief and Title IX coordinator have been outed as plagiarists as well.
And it's pretty bad.
So it turns out there are quite a few people in high-level jobs who simply plagiarized to get PhDs.
Now, if you told me that I could get a PhD by plagiarizing, I think I'd have one by now.
I didn't even realize that works.
Did you know you could literally just plagiarize somebody's PhD thesis and before nobody could check?
So you could just literally just steal shit.
I had no idea that that worked so well.
How many other people do you think have fake PhDs?
It must be massive.
I'm not going to trust any PhD I see anymore.
Anyway.
Here's a DEI persuasion tip.
Persuasion is mostly about what you focus on and hear about the most.
And you think that people use their logic and their common sense and all these things that don't really exist to come to their opinions, but they don't.
They don't.
They mostly build a worldview based on what they hear the most.
So if you are born and grow up in the Islamic civilization, you're probably going to be Islamic.
You know, for that and other reasons as well.
So whatever it is you hear the most, if you're watching CNN, you think that's real.
If you're watching Fox News, you think that's real.
So in general, whatever you hear the most is going to be your worldview.
In general.
Some people could be different.
So here's the problem.
If we talk continuously about DEI, what would be the predicted outcome of that?
DEI, DEI, DEI, DEI, DEI, DEI.
Well, the predicted outcome is that that would become your dominant filter when you're looking at events in the world.
And it has.
So when a big boat runs into a bridge in Baltimore, How many people said, well, probably a DEI hire.
It wasn't.
It had nothing to do with DEI.
It had nothing to do with race.
And in fact, the captain of the boat probably did a really good job, they say.
Really fast acting.
So the people who yelled DEI were all wrong.
As far as I can tell, they were all wrong.
But can you understand why if you're talking about DEI all day long, Isn't it obvious that people would see that as their dominant filter?
There's no way around that.
If it's your dominant conversation, it will also be people's dominant filter.
It's the first thing that they will think of.
Now what happens when it's the first thing you think of everywhere all the time?
And you get a new co-worker who's got a PhD and is one of the groups that would benefit from DEI.
What's your first assumption?
Unqualified.
Is that your fault?
It's not.
We've created a system which is instilling bias in people that didn't have it before.
Right?
If somebody, if they can't stop talking about DEI, all I hear is, oh, in the real world, that means you hire a whole bunch of people who are unqualified.
In the perfect world, it means giving everybody equal opportunity.
But we don't live in any kind of world like that.
If you give managers the goal of diversity and your paychecks is going to depend on it, you're going to get diversity to get your paycheck.
And if you can't get the highest quality people, you're not going to spend your whole, your whole day and everything else looking for them.
You're going to say, well, I hope I get lucky.
I got somebody to fill the diversity slot.
I just hope it isn't a disaster, but you know, We didn't have as many applicants in that category, so I just didn't have as many choices.
So, for reasons that have nothing to do with anybody's genes, or culture, or gender, or any of that stuff, DEI should necessarily, by its design, according to everything we know about human beings, it should force a massive incompetence crisis upon the whole country.
It should.
Like, if you just saw it drawn on paper, And he said, how do you think this is going to turn out?
We're going to talk continuously about one group of people and make sure that they have extra, extra opportunities, which in the real world is going to turn out to racism against white people.
How's that going to look in the long run?
Exactly like it looks now.
You're going to massively increase bias, which it has.
You're going to make people see that as their first filter.
Oh, Black woman with a PhD, probably a plagiarist.
Is that fair?
No.
No.
That is super fucked up.
Imagine putting in the work.
Getting your PhD the real way.
And then you walk into the office and everybody looks at you and they're like, I read the news.
I've been following Christopher Rufo.
I'm not so sure about your PhD.
The worst case scenario right there.
There's your worst fucking case scenario.
And that's what they managed to.
They built a system that guarantees the worst case scenario.
Now it will also guarantee more diversity.
But it also comes with a massive incompetence wave and an amount of discrimination and, well, not discrimination, but bias, probably more than we've ever seen since right after slavery ended, I would guess.
I doubt it's ever been worse.
So you get what you design.
The design pretty much guarantees that we'd be right here.
So I would suggest that if you want less of something, Once you have the basics set up, you should talk less about it, because you're going to get more of it if it's all you're talking about.
Also on TikTok, there's a young woman who's doing a show about all the anti-white TikToks.
So apparently there are quite a few videos on TikTok that are explicitly anti-white.
You know, white people are bad, white people are terrible.
And Misha Petrov, the young woman, she's getting a lot of attention because she's just showing them.
Once you see them all together, it's pretty shocking.
Pretty shocking.
There's a study that says treatment from female doctors leads to lower mortality.
So in other words, the female doctors are getting better results than male doctors.
Do you believe that?
It's a study.
Well, all studies are a toss-up, so we can't say that it's true or not true.
There's really no way to tell.
But, here are some speculations.
Do you think that they checked by age?
Do you think they checked by age?
Because I have a... Let me just put out some speculation.
If they didn't check by age, wouldn't they have A lot more male doctors who are older and a lot more female doctors who are younger.
Would that not be true?
Because here's why I think.
I believe the number of medical school applicants who are women is now at least half.
Whereas in the old days it was less than half.
And so if you had, if you looked at older doctors, they would be more male.
Would they not?
And would it be, would it be reasonable to assume that an older doctor might have less success than the younger doctor?
If only because of, you know, more recent training, something like that.
I don't know.
Now, I'm not saying I know that that's true, so I don't want you to, you know, stop going to your older doctor.
But if you didn't control for age, do you really know what you found?
Because there should be a big difference in age as well.
How about demographics?
Did they check to see the racial makeup of the men and women who are doctors?
Here's something else that DEI predicts, and I'm not saying this happened here, but it predicts it should.
What should happen is if a white man walks in to Get a job as a doctor or applies to medical school.
Let's say a white man.
It's going to be hard to get in unless they're super qualified.
Same with an Asian man.
I suppose they'd have to be super qualified.
Um, but if you were, let's say, let's say if you were, let me put it this way.
If you were a woman, You're automatically in with DEI if you're a white woman.
Is that correct?
If you're a white woman, DEI would promote you, right?
If you're a white man, they would not.
Correct?
Because you wouldn't be DEI.
So you should, if you're really looking for the male-female difference, you're going to have to control for demographics as well.
Do you think they did that?
Did you think they controlled for demographics?
Because if the men were mostly one kind of person and the women were a different kind of person, then you're not really necessarily checking male and female.
Because you may have an age difference, you may have a demographic difference.
And I'm not saying that the demographic difference is anything about genes or culture.
I'm just saying that the conclusion that this study came to is that men and women doctor differently.
That's kind of dangerous, isn't it?
They found out that men and women practice medicine differently.
Do you think that they checked that or they just threw that in there because it sounds like good bullshit?
No, they didn't check that.
They didn't study if men and women practice differently.
No, that wasn't part of the study.
They just made that up.
Do you think that if the men had been the better doctors, they would have said, well, it looks like the men are doing different things, getting better?
No, they wouldn't say that.
They probably wouldn't even show you the study.
But because the women did better, according to the study, they say it's because women are smarter, basically.
They just do better things.
All of this science is bullshit.
But hey, evolution's good, right?
Yeah.
All of this is so obvious bullshit.
But evolution?
All just what you want it to be.
If you're coming in late, If we're not a simulation, then I think evolution is probably a reasonably solid theory.
But I'm pretty sure we're a simulation.
Rasmussen asked likely voters about Biden's Israel policy.
21% think that Biden's policy is too pro-Israel, while 34% think he's too pro-Palestinian.
But my question to you is, What percentage of the voters, likely voters, believe that Biden's policy on Israel is just about right?
What percentage do you think his policy is just about right?
Guess.
Anybody want to prove your magical abilities by guessing the percentage?
All right, I'll tell you.
Yep.
26%?
Well, 25 is a very good guess.
Wow.
So many of you guessed really, really close with 25, but it was 26.
So good job for you.
All right, well, here's what I think.
I think summer's coming.
I think that things are going to start looking up.
And I think that there are a lot of things that are heading in the right direction.
At the same time, there are things that aren't.
But I do think that this is not that different than, you know, struggles the country's had before.
And I think we'll figure our way through it.
But we're definitely going to have to change the president.
So one way or another, whether it's RFK Jr.
or Trump, the current situation has to change.
There's no way this is survivable for four more years.
So, I really worry that four more years of Biden could be just fatal.
Now, I know people say the same thing about Trump, but Trump was president for four years, and you can see that that's not fatal.
And Biden's been president for three, and you can see that that looks very fatal.
If he just kept doing what he's doing, it does look fatal.
There was nothing that Trump was doing that if you straight-lined it would be fatal.
Think about it.
There's nothing that Trump did, except for the debt, that nobody gets a free pass on the debt.
So everybody's guilty about that.
But he wasn't doing things where you just say, well, common sense says if you keep doing this it'll destroy the world.
It was the opposite.
So that's not the same.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, thanks for joining on the tumble tumble on the rumble and YouTube and X platforms.
And I will say goodbye to you.
I'm going to talk to the local subscribers separately if this technology works.
