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, Thomas Massie, Congressional Ukraine Flags, Konstantin Kisin, Evolution Theory, Lifestyle Beliefs, Judge Cannon, Unredacted Jack Smith Docs, Anti-Trump Lawfare, Identity Persuasion, Summer Protests, Senator Schumer Home Protests, Alan Dershowitz, Fine People Hoax, Liberal Single Women, Democrat Female Mental Health, Identity Politics, TikTok Ban Scam, ADL, Israel Support, 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
The pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day is the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Go, go, go.
Ah.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, if you were a subscriber to the Dilbert Reborn comic on the X platform, or you were a member of the Locals community, Scott Adams, not Locals,
You would know that Tina the Tech Writer is being replaced by AI, but in the ultimate insult, the ultimate employee insult, Tina will be asked to train her AI replacement.
Yeah, it's probably one of the number one suggestions I get from people when I ask for Dilbert ideas.
You know, hey, is anything bothering you at your workplace?
The one I get more than any other one.
Well, actually, the one I get the most is people leaving smelly things in microwaves, but I can't write comics about smells.
It just kind of doesn't work.
And they talk about stealing food from the refrigerator, because those are like the simplest, dumbest comic ideas.
But the other one is people being fired or replaced and being asked to train their replacement.
Now imagine if you had to train AI as your replacement.
Is that better or is that worse?
I don't know.
We'll explore that in the Dilbert comic.
Well, I got to tell you about something that happened to me in the simulation yesterday.
For about, I don't know, several years now, probably at least once a day, I've said to myself, you know what?
I should sit down and I should dedicate a whole bunch of my time to writing up what the drinking bleach hoax was, how it was executed, and really do a good job on it.
So yesterday, I fell asleep working during the afternoon, which is not uncommon.
I woke up next to my laptop, as I often do in my man cave, and I really don't sleep enough.
I think that's probably the bottom line there.
I felt all inspired suddenly.
And I said, darn it, I'm going to write this up.
And so I put three hours of the most inspired, best writing of my life, and I wrote up the whole bleach drinking hoax.
And if I'm being honest about my own work, it's just some of the best work I've ever done in my life.
And after years of thinking about it every day and thinking, I've got to do this for the world and it could change, it could change the, really the course of history.
And when I was done, I looked at it and I said, damn, this thing is going to be super viral.
Like, everybody's going to read this.
It's going to uncover the entire technique of creating hoaxes, tell people how they fell for it, show them very clearly that it was a hoax, and it was going to be one of the three tentpole hoaxes.
And when I was done and I hit publish, it was a technical bug that ate it, and it's gone forever.
So, sometimes the simulation has its own plan, apparently.
Do you get a preview?
No, it's gone forever.
It's literally gone.
Just a technical problem.
And I don't know if I can do it again.
So here will be the interesting part.
I tend to think that things like this have some kind of a weird purpose to them because I can't think of the last time I lost a document.
Do you remember the last time you lost a document after you'd finished it?
It's almost something that doesn't happen in the modern, you know, technological world.
Very rare, but it's definitely gone.
And I thought to myself, there must be some reason I'm not allowed to do this.
Now I, you know, obviously I don't see any specific mechanism to make that happen, but it's really a weird coincidence that the most important thing I've written in years By far.
The most consequential thing that would actually put a big dent in the whole world disappeared.
I just don't know how to explain that.
It's just such a weird coincidence.
So, here's what we'll watch for.
Does it mean that I was meant to rewrite it better?
What do you think?
Is the universe telling me it wasn't good enough?
And I have to do it better, because it's that important?
Or is the universe telling me don't do it?
Or is it nothing but a coincidence?
I don't know.
I don't think the human brain knows how to sort out this stuff, but I'll let you know if I write it.
Anyway, I did have an earlier draft of it, so I might be able to put it back together.
Thomas Massey tells us that the House Sergeant-at-Arms wants to fine him $500, maybe a day, per day, for having a post on X that shows a video of the House and a number of the members waving Ukrainian flags during the vote about the Ukrainian funding.
Now, do you think that the House Sergeant-at-Arms has the authority to fine him because of something he posted on X?
Well, apparently that there's some kind of rule that says you can't have a video of, you know, the proceedings inside.
And if it was his own video and he took it and then he posted it, that probably would be a violation.
On the other hand, it does seem like absolutely legitimate news And I would be very happy to see it.
So of course I reposted it to make sure that more people saw it.
And I'd like to make an offer to Thomas Massey that if it turns out that he's going to pay $500 a day, I will pay for one of those days.
So I'll pledge $500.
If it gets fined, I'll pay $500 to, you know, either to his campaign or something.
So I'll try to make sure that he's, the blow is softened.
Right.
And if anybody else wants to commit to paying for a day, you can pay for your free speech, because free speech costs, let's see, free speech costs $500 a day, for free speech.
Yeah.
Well, California, my state, has so much solar power, it turns out, that during the day, there's more solar power than there is demand for it.
Now, we still have, overall, there's an energy problem because it's not balanced.
But so many people in California took the government rebates and everything and put solar on their house, that when we get that afternoon baking sun, we're actually creating more energy than we're using.
That's kind of amazing, isn't it?
I mean, it's bad and good at the same time.
So 25% of our electricity is now from solar.
You know, this is one of those things that kind of, it's too slow and then it happens fast.
You know, there are a lot of things like that.
It's like, God, it's slow.
It's slow.
It's slow.
And then it's fast.
So maybe we'll have a lot of solar here really fast.
Did you hear Biden's latest gaffe?
If it's a gaffe at all.
He was saying in his speech about Trump, but he talked about himself accidentally.
He said, how many times does he have to prove we can't be trusted?
How many times does Trump have to prove that Biden's administration can't be trusted?
Well, I don't know.
How many times will it take?
He still has half of the country on his side, so apparently it's not enough.
Well, I don't know if we should make anything of that other than Biden's brain is toast and everybody knows it.
Constantine Kissin, who you know from Trigonometry.
Very fun and smart commentator on world events has introduced a new word into our vocabulary, the retardosphere.
The retardosphere.
I'm just going to read you what he said because it's kind of funny the way he puts it.
So Konstantin Kissin says on Axe, the left-wing retarded sphere was created by sensible people on the left being silent when they should have said something.
The right-wing retarded sphere is being formed in exactly the same way.
And he says, stop sending me DMs about how much you agree with me about the woke right, strap on a pair and say something.
So that's a little bit different than the point he's going to make next.
Unless you want to be on the side that thinks evolution is, quote, just a theory, i.e., doesn't understand what a theory is in science, sees America as the bad guy in every war, and wants to stop women voting.
So that would be his description of the right-wing retardosphere, would be people who think evolution is just a theory, meaning in their view of it that it's not real, and sees America as the bad guy in every war and wants to stop women from voting.
And then Constantine says, I am not right wing, but the last thing I want is for the left and right to go full retard at the same time.
And then he says, truth is king in all caps.
Well, may I take a moment to defend the retardosphere?
Would you like that?
Are there any members of the retardosphere here who would Is there anybody here who would identify with not fully accepting evolution, seeing America as the bad guy in at least the recent wars, and thinks that women should stop voting?
Is anybody in that category here?
Any one of those?
Alright, a lot of people have said yes.
Alright, here's my take on it.
And I think Constantine is pretty far off on his frame for this.
I like his general thinking.
His general thinking is, I don't want to be associated with crazy people.
That's good.
Or irrational people.
So I like the basic thrust of it.
But here's what I think he might be missing, because as he says, he's not right wing.
So there's some things that if you spend more time in that sphere, You get a little nuance on these things.
So I'm going to give it a little nuance that may, may not be obvious to the casual traveler.
Okay.
Number one, the part about evolution being just a theory.
Yes, it is embarrassing when somebody says they don't believe in evolution because it's quote, just a theory.
If I can educate you on one thing, it's that people who understand science will think you're a moron.
If you say something's not proven because it's just a theory, because in the scientific realm, theory means it is proven.
Hypothesis means it's not proven.
Theory means there's so much evidence for it, you might as well just call it a fact.
But, because science doesn't like to commit itself knowing that sometimes even a fact, or something they thought was absolutely true, can sometimes be overturned.
So they do keep it a little bit weak, just because you never know what a fact is, for sure.
But it is not true that theory means they're not quite sure about it.
They're very, very sure about it.
And that's what the word theory means in their domain.
So get that part right.
Just know that in common language, theory means unproven.
But in scientific language, it means very, very much proven.
Does everybody know that?
No, again, it doesn't mean they're right.
I'm just telling you what the words mean in their domains.
We'll talk about who's right separately.
So get that right, because you will sound like a bad debater if you get that word usage wrong.
That's a real red flag for somebody who's going to mock you for not understanding science.
However, it is a very common misunderstanding, and I don't think that anybody disbelieves the theory of evolution because the word theory is used.
Would you agree with that?
There's nobody who disbelieves it simply because they use the word theory.
So for Constantine to point that out as something he wants to mock, I don't really think that's something anybody actually believes.
I think they disbelieve evolution for a reason that I'll talk about.
Could be a right reason, could be a bad reason.
I'm not saying it's a good or bad reason, but I'm saying it has nothing to do with the word.
So if you think that anybody has this belief because they didn't know how to use this word correctly in the domain of science, that's a complete misdirection.
It's just really they're using the word wrong.
It has nothing to do with their actual opinion of the topic.
It's just the word.
So, I would say that that's not a fair statement, but I think the larger point, if I could read between the lines, I'm not a mind reader, but I think what he means is more the general idea that evolution is proven, according to science, and that if you say you're not buying it, you're being sort of anti-science in a retarded way.
That seems to be Constantine's point.
But I would like to offer the following counterpoints.
Number one, when Tucker Carlson, who really got this whole conversation going, when Tucker Carlson says he doesn't believe in evolution because he believes that God made us, do you think that Tucker regards that as a scientific fact, that God made us?
I think what maybe Constantine is missing is that this is what I'd call a lifestyle belief.
A lifestyle belief.
It's not in the domain of what's true or false.
It's a choice based on faith.
The reason there's the word faith is because it's very distinct from, I looked at the facts and science guides me.
So to me, when I see Tucker say that he has a belief that God made it, to me, that's a lifestyle choice to have that worldview.
I don't think that's the same as not thinking evolution is real.
To me, those are different concepts.
So I think you have to understand that some people make a choice to accept an entire, let's say, philosophy, Because following the philosophy has worldly benefits, meaning it helps you today, and maybe helps you go to heaven if you think that's part of the plan.
So when I look at Christians, let's say the Tucker types, who believe that God created the earth, I say to myself, well, I don't know if you've got the mechanism right, but I'm not so, I'm not so, I don't lack so much humility that I think I know the answer.
So I think there's a little lack of humility when you say, I know the answer of how we all got here, and you got it wrong.
So that bothers me a little bit.
But I think you have to understand that religious faith is not trying to compete with science.
It's more like, if I buy this entire package, I can see that it works while I'm alive.
It might even work after I'm dead, if I go to heaven.
So it's really just a choice about what works.
And I don't think you should fact check it.
I'm not going to fact check the Muslims.
Right?
I mean, I used to think that was something I could do.
It's like, huh, I'm not so sure that Mohammed went to heaven on a flying horse.
Don't bother.
It's not a scientific discussion.
It is a lifestyle choice to accept a worldview, which has a certain set of advantages right here on earth.
So, um, I feel that that has to be said.
Then there's a question, uh, is America the bad guy in every war?
Well, I think the word every is, you know, a little bit hyperbole, but I do believe the, that America is the bad guy in recent wars.
Is that, is there anything wrong with that opinion?
It does seem to me that our recent wars are driven by energy.
And the military-industrial complex.
And stuff like that.
You know, the Atlantic Council.
Whatever.
I don't think we have any kind of a democracy where we're going to save the world for freedom.
We don't care about anybody else's freedom.
We could give a... Oh, I almost did it.
I'm not going to curse.
We don't care about the freedom in other countries.
We will work with their dictator just fine.
Yeah.
Do you think we have a problem with the The kingship of the royal family in Jordan?
No!
No, the royal family in Jordan are awesome, and we seem to like them and get along just fine.
No, we don't need them to be a democracy.
As long as they're on our team, that's fine.
So no, I do think that America is the bad guy, but I'll give a little bit of nuance on that as well.
I'm not sure being the bad guy is the worst thing it could be.
It could be that being a good guy is the worst thing you can do.
Because being a good guy makes you weak and probably get destroyed by somebody who's more of a bad guy.
I feel like in the real world, when you get outside of the philosophical, that the baddest player tends to be in charge and you're probably better off being on the same team, roughly speaking, as the baddest player in the game.
So I think America is usually the baddest of the bad, but being on the team of the bad guys when they're winning, it might be your best bet for survival.
So I think you can be on the bad team and also say it's good for you.
So I think that's fair to say.
But no, America is not always the good guy.
And everything we say about why we do what we do is all BS.
Would you agree?
The reasons we give, like, oh, we're going to save your democracy.
Oh, we got to make sure those dominoes don't fall.
All the communists are going to come and get you.
None of that's real.
That's completely made up.
It's always about money and energy and military and, you know, and all that.
But as I say again, keeping our economy strong by raping other countries seems to be a good business model and it does keep us safer.
So it's a complicated world.
And how about this one?
And the retarded sphere wants to stop women from voting.
How serious do you think that is?
Now I see that a lot.
It's like a common thing.
But it has a lot to do with the Democrats, you know, being largely a party of women and a lot of the basher crazy things are, seem to be driven by women.
But I don't think anybody's serious about that.
I mean, not when I say not anybody, there are a few people who act like they're serious about it.
I don't think so.
Yeah, I don't think they're super serious about it.
So I think Constantine may, you know, as he says, he's not right-wing, so he may see these things as a little more serious than they are.
A little more serious.
But more to the point, when you say truth is king in all capitals, there's sort of a suggestion there that you know what the truth is and the other people got it wrong.
How does that sit with you?
Let's talk about evolutionary biology that science got right.
Now, if they got it right, wouldn't that be really unique in science, to be right?
We know that 50% of the studies can't be reproduced.
I'm pretty sure that climate change is completely BS, if you look at the models.
I'm pretty sure that the field of psychology is probably more BS than not.
I'm pretty sure this string theory is not going to pan out.
I don't think physicists can really explain any of the things that they're talking about, but the math works, you know, and sometimes the experiment will prove they were right, but I don't think they know what's going on.
I don't think they can explain the double slit experiment without using words that just sound crazy.
So, you know, uh, chemistry is probably pretty solid because you can run the experiment and see if it works.
And engineering is solid.
So we're real good at, well, not we, but people, some people who are not me are good at making rockets that can maybe go to Mars someday, but that's engineering, right?
Science, is as close to completely broken as anything has ever been.
So it feels almost an out-of-date opinion to say that truth is king and believe the science.
We just came out of the pandemic.
Believing the science sounds like the dumb view at this point.
And so I'd like to suggest that the people who are saying that they know which science is correct because science is good and they've got all these facts, I'd like to suggest that I'm not sure that's the smartest take in 2024.
In 2024, I think everything that can't be proven in an experiment on a table, like chemistry, is probably BS.
There's a far greater chance it's not true.
Now, I got dragged into this evolution thing because I said the following.
I said that the survival of the fitness, I'm sorry, survival, what do they call it?
Natural selection.
I said in a post that natural selection was no longer believed by most scientists.
Now, of course, the people who believed that they knew scientists jumped all over me and said, what are you talking about?
Natural selection is believed by almost all scientists.
To which I said, I probably should have said, survival of the fittest.
Because if you're not aware of this, one of the most famous evolutionary biologists type, Stephen Jay Gould, he was famous for having shown that survival of the fittest, in its most narrow sense, wasn't a good explanation of what was happening.
In other words, it wasn't just that you competed better so you survived, but there were a whole bunch of things that could cause you to survive that were not directly related to how fit you were as a competitor.
Sometimes it was just luck.
Sometimes you just happened to be where there weren't any competitors.
So you weren't like especially fit to compete.
You just didn't need to compete.
Now other people say, Scott, Scott, Scott, you're using compete too narrowly.
If there's a limit to resources, you're at the very least competing for the limited resources.
And if the resources are not limited at the moment, if your population keeps growing, eventually you'll hit a limit, and then you will be competing for resources.
But there are these other elements, like luck, that could be part of it as well.
Now here's what I say.
And see if this blows your brain up.
What does natural selection mean if it means all of those things that are part of the natural process?
So what's it mean?
It doesn't mean anything.
So the mechanism to describe evolution is that, hey, it looks like things changed.
These things are part of nature, so it's natural selection.
So nature selected what the outcome was.
How could that not be the case?
What would be the alternative to nature causing it to be the way it is?
And to me that's such a broad explanation that it doesn't mean anything.
All it is is an observation that here we are.
Do you get that?
Natural selection doesn't mean anything because it means everything.
If it applies to everything in nature, had to happen just the way it did to get us to just where we are, it's not really talking about anything.
And so here I note that the change was from, you know, this narrow definition of fittest to some wider definition of, you know, number of variables involved.
In my opinion, that's a complete change in going from a specific mechanism to just saying, I don't know, just look, nature.
Now, I know what you're going to say and what the scientists will say, Scott, Scott, Scott, I feel so bad for you when you talk about science because you don't know what's going on and you just don't understand all the science-y things.
But I do have a long track record of calling BS on fields in which I don't know anything about them.
And my track record is really good.
Like, really, really good at calling BS.
This, to me, looks kind of like BS.
Now, I'm not doubting that things change over time, unless we're in a simulation.
But I do think that if you talk about people being dumb for doubting evolution, You kind of have to mention that the simulation is about a billion times more likely than evolution.
And if the simulation is true, then evolution is just another illusion within the simulation.
So it's not true, it's just an illusion.
And probably the history gets created on demand as opposed to the other way around.
Anyway, so Konstantin, who's one of the more valuable, I think, public figures and thinkers, Um, everybody has a blind spot.
And I think if you're not in an in-group, you almost always have a blind spot for, you know, the nuance of the reasoning.
So there I'm discovering, I'm, uh, defending the retarded sphere.
Um, all right.
So the gateway pundit giving us more details on this, uh, judge cannon.
And the unredacted documents from Jack Smith and his investigation into the Mar-a-Lago boxes.
So, apparently, according to the Gateway Pundit, some of the things that were redacted, but now we can see, is that revealed that Biden's White House had direct ties to the Mar-a-Lago raid.
The Biden regime was also directly tied to Jack Smith's investigation, despite claims to the contrary from Merrick Garland.
And the redactions also covered up that the National Archives had had several conversations with the Biden White House.
So the whole question was, Trump keeps saying that Biden is, you know, the Biden administration is orchestrating all the lawfare, and everybody says, oh no, what are you talking about?
I've seen no evidence of that whatsoever.
Yes, you've seen no evidence of it, because it was redacted, and now we've seen it.
Apparently there's lots of evidence that the The Biden White House is directly connected to all of these lawfare situations.
So it's exactly what it looks like.
It's a lawfare.
It's completely illegal, immoral, illegitimate.
And probably there's nothing that will happen about it.
Because the people in charge are the bad guys.
And if the bad guys are also the ones in charge, nothing's gonna happen.
Nothing's gonna happen about that.
Probably one of the biggest crimes of the century is the lawfare against Trump.
And the January 6th committee the probably the biggest Rico conspiracy that I've ever seen Will be not I don't think it'll be punished at all not at all All right All right, here's a persuasion expert And Jonah Berger and he was on some show recently
Teaching people this following persuasion trick.
And he used the example of five-year-olds.
They were trying to get five-year-olds to help clean up.
Clean up the house or clean up their space or something.
And the technique using a Stanford University study.
Well, it was a Stanford University study about five-year-olds.
If you say to them, can you help clean?
You'll get a lower cooperation.
Then if you word it this way, instead of, can you help clean?
You say, can you be a helper and clean up?
If you say, can you be a helper?
You're giving somebody the option of accepting an identity.
When people accept an identity, then they act on the identity.
It's automatic.
If you, if you ask them to do something, they compare it to their identity.
And if it's not in their identity, they don't do it.
So, this is a technique which I've also talked about, but I call it the Jesus Persuasion.
Jesus Persuasion is telling you that you could be a better person.
So, it's encouraging you to adopt an identity as a more moral and virtuous person than you were before you heard your Lord talk to you.
So, it's very appealing to say to somebody, How would you like to upgrade your identity from, you know, peasant who has nothing going for you to believer who has a higher moral standard and is going to heaven?
And you think, I wouldn't mind being one of those.
And then once you become one, all of the, all of the activities that go with it just come automatically.
All right.
Now, do you understand why I register as a different party?
From what I usually advocate.
Does that make sense now?
Do you understand why I'm not a joiner?
I don't join groups.
Because as soon as you join a group and identify in a real way, you know, I register as a Democrat, but I don't mean it.
So it's not my identity.
So I try to avoid having an identity.
Because the moment you have an identity, it causes all of your actions to conform.
And that's what team play does.
So if you say to somebody, you're a Democrat, they're going to start acting like one, even if they were not inclined to before.
Identity creates activity.
So you gotta, you gotta change somebody's identity if you want them to change their behavior.
Almost nothing else works because people don't act against their identity.
Like if you think you're an honest person, you don't rob a bank.
Right?
It's pretty much a direct effect.
If you think you're an academic, you're probably more likely to go to school.
Whatever you think you are, you're likely to do that thing.
So this is a really, really good persuasion technique.
Now, let's apply it.
Let's say you're a Republican and you want Republicans to vote.
Do you say, make sure you vote?
No.
No.
Because make sure your vote is telling you what to do.
It's not no identity.
Now compare that to this.
Be one of the people who saves America.
Help us save America.
Vote.
Oh!
Now you get a little identity.
Do you want to be a savior?
Do you want to be like the Boston Tea Party?
Do you want to be a patriot?
You know, Patriot's a word that not everybody is comfortable with, but it's an identity.
Now, the identity that I have most accepted in the past is Patriot, because I think, wow, you know, I just want to be on the side of the people who are on the side of the country.
But lately, when given that half of the country canceled me, I was asked recently, somebody was giving me a hard time on some point, and they said, but, oh, because I said something about Israel, and they said, but you wouldn't say that you don't support America just because America does some bad things, would you?
To which I said, huh, America canceled me.
Half of it.
So no, I don't support America.
America canceled me.
The current system, which I call America, ganged up on me, identified me, discriminated against me, and has been discriminating against me in employment for over 30 years.
I've lost four different careers for being a white guy.
So why would I support that?
I do not support America.
That's my current, brand new opinion.
And I think I was, you know, largely hypnotized that I ever did.
Here's what I support.
You.
I support you citizens who did not cancel me.
Period.
Because you're actually good people.
And I like good people.
And I like most of the things that you like.
And I identify with you.
I'm definitely one of you.
And I'm completely on your team.
But America was lost decades ago.
So to say that I support America would say that I'm in some kind of a brainwashed, you know, gooner situation in which I'm like, oh, wave my flag.
Nope.
Unfortunately, I've been far too black billed to say I support the brainwashing collection of things which our masters have given to us.
I support the citizens, and there are a number of things I support, like freedom of speech, for example, and Second Amendment, for example.
So I definitely support those things, and there's a whole bunch of stuff in the Constitution that I think is terrific.
So I'm pro-Constitution.
But do I support the government?
No.
The government is my enemy, and I mean that literally.
The government is my enemy.
I mean the government has decided I'm their enemy and has weaponized its own resources against me personally.
Personally.
Yeah.
I've experienced it in a personal way.
So no, I'm not going to be on the side of my enemy because my enemy is literally trying to destroy me.
My government is trying to put me out of business and they tried really hard.
They just couldn't try harder than they did without, you know, an overreach.
So they did it the clever way they can through their, you know, minions.
So now, don't ask me to salute the flag or even stand for it.
I don't believe I would even stand for the Pledge of Allegiance at this point, because I think it's absurd.
I think the country is so far from any image of America that was the kind that you hold in your mind as the good one, the one you wanted to support.
We're so far from that.
I mean, the Biden administration is just a criminal enterprise.
The CIA has been running the show since probably the 50s or 60s.
We're nothing like a democratic republic, nothing like that.
And we are being robbed every day.
So that richer people can sell weapons to people, basically.
So no, I don't support any of that.
All right, fake protest season is coming, as you all know.
We all expect the big summer of fake protests.
And what we don't know yet is if the pro-Palestinian protesters, who some would call pro-Hamas, we don't know if that's going to be the summer protest or if there might be some new one, but I suspect it will.
But there is a wrinkle.
Don't you expect that the summer protests are always going to be sort of pro-Democrat, anti-Republican?
That's the ones you expect, right?
Because you think, oh, George Soros is funding people.
He's sort of closer to the Democrats.
So it's going to be sort of a Democrat-friendly protesting summer riot group, like BML or, you know, in its own way, Antifa.
So, does that apply to these groups?
Well, I looked a little bit, did some googling, and apparently some of the organizers of these recent protests are funded by the Soros organization.
So, apparently Soros is funding things.
Now, you'd normally think this would work out well for Democrats, relative to Republicans, but it turns out that the protesters surrounded Senate Leader Chuck Schumer's home in Brooklyn.
And he's Jewish.
Imagine being Senator Schumer, a Jewish American, and you look out the window and a whole bunch of people with Hamas colors and Palestinian flags and stuff are demonstrating against you, and it's not too long after October 7th.
How do you think Chuck Schumer feels about that?
Now let me tell you, I'm not politically—I don't often—a few times I have—I don't often agree with Chuck Schumer, so politically I'm not on his side.
But I don't want to see anybody in my country surrounded suspiciously because they're Jewish.
I don't think it's just because he's the Speaker of the House.
It feels like they're getting a twofer there, and I'm not really comfortable with that.
I wonder, will the Democrats and Soros and the people who generally are favorable to that point of view, are they going to say we went too far and we unleashed a force that's going to eat us alive?
Because this force is going to eat alive the Democrats.
Somehow, for some reason, Republicans are getting a pass, I guess because they're out of power.
At least in the presidency.
So Trump is getting a hell of a free pass.
I don't know how long that's going to last.
I think it has everything to do with him being out of power.
So let's keep an eye on this.
They're asking Schumer to stop arming Israel.
And earlier in the day, Schumer thanked Speaker Mike Johnson for passing the Ukraine-Israel funding bill.
All right, so here's my question.
Mike Johnson is not Jewish, as far as I know.
Schumer is.
They were both involved in passing the legislation, but the Jewish guy is surrounded.
Is that a coincidence?
It does feel like they're going for the twofer, doesn't it?
So it's hard to be comfortable with that as just free speech.
I mean, I guess it is free speech, but it's hard to feel that it's, you know, purely a policy thing and not something much, much worse.
Anyway, so we'll keep an eye on that.
I don't know if that'll become the summer riots, but I suspect it will.
I just think it might backfire.
It might be the summer riots that they wish they hadn't instigated.
And I remind you that there's no such thing as spontaneous, organic protests.
That's really not a thing.
The only way these protests happen is if there are organizations that are already founded, and they've got some members, and they get funding from somebody like Soros or some other source, and then they've got money to do something, and they've got members, and then they've got something to do.
But it's not like there's people just were sitting around watching the news and then they thought, oh, I think I'll go out and protest in the streets and get arrested.
No, it's mostly organized stuff.
Dershowitz had an opinion piece in, I think it was the Wall Street Journal, and he was talking about Biden's recent gaffe, where he sort of both-sized the Israel-Palestinian-Hamas situation.
And in so doing, he became sort of an example of the fine people hoax himself.
In other words, it looked like he was creating some kind of a moral equivalency between Israel and the terrorists who attacked Israel.
Now you could argue whether that's a correct take or not, but here's what I'd like to say.
Dershowitz did debunk the fine people hoax, but he did it in such a poor way that I have to criticize him.
I don't know if I've ever criticized Dershowitz before in terms of his opinions, Because I often call him out as one of the best, you know, intellectuals in public and willing to say the difficult things, even if it doesn't agree with his team.
So generally I see him as, you know, at the highest level of intellectual credibility.
And so, so I very much appreciate that he's, here's what he said.
I'll give you his quote so you're not, you're not listening to me say it.
He said, quote, yes, I'm very, uh, Oh, he's talking about Trump's quote on Charlottesville.
So he's quoting Trump.
You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had some people that were very fine people on both sides, Mr. Trump said.
Now this is according to Dershowitz.
He later explained, meaning Trump, that he meant both sides of the debate over whether to remove a Confederate monument and that the anti-Semitic chanters were very bad people he had in mind.
He should have been clearer from the start.
That's where he lost me.
He should have been clearer from the start.
No, Alan Dershowitz, you're letting your team, the Democrats, you're letting them get away with this too easily.
This was not a case of a hoax was created by Trump not being clear.
At the very same time that he said the find people thing, he said a few things, and then within, I think, 60 seconds, he said, and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis, they should be condemned totally.
Now that is the clearest statement anybody ever made about anything.
And for Alan Dershowitz to say he should have been clearer from the start is giving a total pass to the bad guys on his team.
On his team.
The bad guys who turned it into propaganda.
He should have said this was never a thing, he was very clear that he wasn't talking about him, and the bad guys, his team, Turned it into a hoax that changed the nature of America and has almost destroyed it.
Now that's a fair assessment.
Anyway, and then he went on to say Biden had this week his own moment of unclarity.
Well, I think it is fair to say that Biden was unclear.
Which also is not a full condemnation of what he said, because I think that there's a little bit of piling on because of the piling on at Charlottesville.
But, uh, I think Biden was unclear, but Trump was not unclear.
And I don't think you should draw an equivalent between them, Alan Dershowitz, who I have much respect for intellectually.
I think you just got this completely wrong.
Uh, there's, uh, so a post and some data from, uh, was it Ann Wogeness, I think the account, Ann Wogeness, um, that the number of, here's the demographic breakdown.
of men and women, Democrat versus Republican.
So, the Democrats in married men, they have 39% are married men, so less than half are married men.
Married women, 42%, so less than half or fewer than half.
Which is correct?
Fewer than half or less than half?
Is there any pedantic people?
Is it less than half or fewer than half?
Or both.
Might be one of those cases where both works.
Because sometimes only one is the proper way, but we don't often call that out.
Anyway.
So whichever it is.
Then unmarried men, 45% again, less than half.
So the only demographic that Democrats have the majority in, of the married and unmarried men and women stuff, is 68% of the single women.
68% of single women are Democrats.
Now, without being unkind and referring to scientific data, single women, and liberal single women in particular, are known to be especially batshit crazy, meaning literally they seek therapy the most, they're literally the most miserable Depressed, mentally ill group.
And I don't know how much longer we can go without calling it out for what it is, because we're pretending we have a political difference.
It's not a political difference when one of you has a mental illness.
And I think I've called it out enough that you can see it.
When you see the women, the Democrat women on TV, not all of them, There are plenty of them that don't fall into this category, but don't you notice that they look mentally ill?
Can't you tell just by looking at them?
And again, I'm not saying all Democrats or anything like that, but there's a ton of women who are Democrats who, when they talk, you look at their eyes and their expression, and all you see is mental illness.
And to continue ignoring the obvious, that we have a mental illness problem that is pretending to be a political philosophy, Um, I think is not helping us at all.
So we should call it out for what it is.
You know, uh, Constantine, uh, calls it, uh, um, what do you call it?
The, uh, retarded sphere.
But I think that's giving it too much credit.
If you call it the retarded sphere, you're, you're sort of acting like you were born that way.
But I think that TDS has literally made people crazy.
Which means it's not necessarily their own fault.
So I have some sympathy for the mentally ill Democrats, because I do think that they were propagandized so hard by their own team, that Trump is Hitler, that the idea that there's, you know, something like an equal number of Americans who want Hitler, according to their view of the world, that's got to be the most distressing, depressing, saddest, alarming thing I could ever imagine.
Put yourself in their position.
You're a single woman, and you've been told, and you believed it, that an actual Hitler was coming into office to take away your democracy and, I don't know, turn you into babymakers or something.
Yeah, of course that would make you mentally ill.
Why wouldn't it?
So, I'm not sure there's anybody to blame, except the propaganda people on the Democrat side have destroyed the mental health of their own team.
The Republicans were able to withstand the propaganda.
Do you know why?
Can you tell me why the propaganda that the Democrats completely mentally disturbed their own people, why did it have little to no effect on Republicans?
Tell me.
You know the answer.
Why did it have little or no effect on Republicans?
No, not because Republicans have more men, although they do.
It's not that.
Critical thinking?
No.
They get both sides?
No.
News?
Better news?
No.
They knew it was fake?
No.
Guns?
No.
BS detector?
No.
Media?
Okay.
I must be the worst teacher in the history of teachers.
I literally just gave you an entire lesson on why this is happening.
Republicans have an identity.
So their identity is completely protective against Democrat propaganda.
Democrat propaganda doesn't work with somebody who identifies as not a Democrat.
If you identify as Republican, their propaganda just bounces off you.
You don't need better news and better sources.
You don't need to see both sides.
You don't need better critical thinking, but I think it's humorous that you gave yourself all those pats on the back.
All right.
If you could take a moment, just take a moment to think about the comments.
You were watching the comments at the same time.
You were all patting yourself on the back for your advantages.
Well, it's probably because we have better critical thinking.
Yeah, that's probably because we see the news on both sides.
Maybe it's because we're not mentally ill.
Maybe it's because men are smarter than women and women are emotional, and there are more men than Republicans.
Did you see how you just immediately ran to compliment yourselves?
And do you know what you complimented yourselves on?
Fill in the blanks.
What did you compliment yourself on?
Your identity.
Yeah.
You basically gave me answers that went to your identity.
So your identity is you see both sides, you're logical, you're not, you're not driven by emotional spirits.
You know, you see things as they really, that's your identity.
That's not thinking.
That's not reasoning.
That's not facts and data.
That was your identity.
This might be the best lesson I've ever given because I didn't realize that you would all fall into this trap.
I didn't plan it this way.
But is anybody having a moment?
You're seeing this, right?
You're seeing it in real time, that the persuasion rule that identity is everything and do something differently never works for anybody.
You just watched, you solidify it around your identity with no regard to the facts.
With no regard to the facts.
But you just complimented yourself at how awesome you are in your identity.
Now, If that sounded like a criticism, it shouldn't be.
You should take it as like a mind-opening moment.
Because, as I've told you before, even though I identify often as far left of some of your opinions, I prefer you as humans.
So my audience are the people I would want to be around.
If I were ever in trouble, I would want you guys to show up first.
You know what I mean?
You know, if my car's on fire and I'm trapped in it, I want all of you to be the first ones on the scene.
You get that, right?
Because you're the ones who would pull me out at great personal risk.
That's who I want on my team.
I don't need to agree with you on your religious beliefs.
Nope.
I just need to know that if I'm in a burning car, you're the car that's going to stop.
And for that same reason, I will stop for you.
So that's important.
So I'm very bonded in terms of, you know, that, that dynamic.
But I try not to give myself an identity beyond the fact that there's some character, there's some character things and some policy things that we're totally in agreement on.
All right.
The anti-Trump legal commentators, according to the Daily Caller, there's a group of the worst people in the world, according to me, who have a weekly Zoom meeting to talk about how they can present the case against Trump in the most persuasive way.
So here are the people who are meeting on Zoom weekly to make sure they're all on the same page about going after Trump.
So you've got, let's see, Norman Eisen, he's a CNN legal analyst.
You've got Bill Kristol, MSNBC legal analyst.
Andrew Weissman, lawyer.
Jeffrey Toobin.
Jeffrey Toobin's on the Zoom call.
It's a Zoom call.
Jeffrey Toobin's on it.
You're probably wondering, are you just gonna let that go, Scott?
That there's a Zoom call?
With a bunch of lawyers who are anti-Trump, and one of them's Jeffrey Toobin.
Am I just gonna let that go?
Also has Lawrence Tribe, former Nixon White House counsel, although he's, you know, super Democrat at the moment.
John Dean, he's a Lincoln Project co-founder.
George Conway, we all know George Conway.
And Harry Littman, And then for some reason, Washington Post opinion writer Jennifer Rubin is in these meetings.
So it seems to me that another way to report this story would be that there's a group of people who meet weekly on Zoom to masturbate over Trump's legal issues.
I think it's being led by Tubin.
And if they're not jerk buddies, I don't know who is.
So I'm going to refer to him anytime I see any of these lawyers as the jerk buddies.
They're just getting on Zoom and gooning over.
Oh, I think he's going down now.
Oh, tell me more about what Jack Smith said.
Oh, redact me baby.
Redact it.
Whoa.
That's how I see it.
Redact me hard.
Um, is that true?
Somebody just said they're all Jewish.
Is that true?
George Conway?
John Dean?
No, I don't think they're all Jewish.
But the fact that there are a lot of lawyers who are also Jewish is not the biggest surprise in the world.
No, I don't think they're all Jewish.
So the TikTok, they're calling it a ban, but it's not.
So the TikTok bill apparently is He's gonna make it to the president's desk and he's gonna sign it.
Now, I think this is a total fake.
I don't think TikTok's gonna disappear.
One of two things is gonna happen.
They've got a year to fight it in court, and they'll either win in court and it'll stay just the way it is, or it will be divested to an American company purely for the purpose I'm not entirely sure that's an upgrade.
door to it so that instead of China having all our private information and being able to control us and brainwash us, our own country will be able to have all of our personal information and usage and who we're connected to and also brainwash us. I'm not entirely sure that's an upgrade.
Now, I of course have been one of the most vocal proponents of banning TikTok, But only if you're really going to ban it.
If all you're doing is putting the CIA in charge of it, you're just changing the warden.
You didn't let anybody out of jail.
I want people to get out of jail.
I'm not looking for a different warden.
That's buying me nothing.
So I think that the public has been duped into thinking something has happened and And your Congress is finally acting, and there's things and processes.
I don't think anything is happening.
It's either going to go right back to the way it was, because of some court case, or it's going to be worse, because our CIA will be in charge of it.
I don't know.
Doesn't look good to me.
And the thing that makes me most suspicious Is that it went from having no support to suddenly everybody loved it.
And it got, you know, put into a bill that you couldn't resist, or at least Congress couldn't resist.
To me, that just looks like our intelligence people decided it was time to make a play, and they just made a play to own the thing.
And remember where Constantine said, hey, I don't think you can say America's the bad guy in every war.
I think America just stole one of China's biggest companies, or at least the American business part of it.
I don't know.
You know, I don't think China should have been in control, obviously, but I don't think we're the good guys.
All right.
According to the Gateway Pundit, the headlines are sort of missing this story.
Stormy Daniels owes Trump $300,000 plus interest for her false claims she made against him.
So Stormy Daniels is actually paying Trump for false claims made against him.
The courts have ruled.
At the same time, Trump's in court for, what, an accounting thing that nobody can even understand why it's illegal?
Literally, the experts are, I don't even know why this is illegal.
I don't even understand it.
So of course that's... Anyway.
Elon Musk was commenting on a graph that I think was going around that showed that around 2015-ish, I wonder what was happening about then, the words racism and racist and race were used in newspapers up 361 to 700 percent.
Starting around 2014-ish, actually.
So, as Elon Musk says, this graph illustrates the woke mind virus taking over legacy media.
The same happened with online media and the education system, then it spread to other countries.
And here's what I say.
I don't think there's any force that will make wokeness go away.
And I think our Our impression that it's being beaten back is because if you read a lot of right-leaning Republican kind of news sources, they're always, you know, trumpeting the anecdotal story of this university or this Texas place got rid of DEI and stuff like that.
But I think it's growing faster than it's being reduced.
That's my sense of it.
We just see the stories where it's being reduced.
We don't see all the times that somebody added their DI, you know, added the DI stuff.
So I don't think it's correcting itself at all.
But there is a force that could correct it.
And it might be forming up.
It hasn't kicked off yet.
So there was a court case recently, I think it was the Supreme Court, that said that white people could sue for discrimination in employment.
Now, we haven't seen a big wave of that, but given that Stephen Miller has that America First Fund, which seems to be designed exactly for this sort of thing, Which is to push individual cases that have a larger political dimension to them.
And what I'd love to see is the funding for that backing a bunch of anti-white discrimination cases.
Because if it becomes impossible to be in business and discriminate against white people because it's just too expensive, the trial lawyers and the insurance companies just eat you up, that could change things.
I don't think anything changes until it's expensive.
So here, where I might disagree with Elon Musk, that people will just sort of see the... I'm not sure what mechanism he thinks would reverse it, so I won't read his mind.
But the only mechanism that reverses anything is money.
Nothing else really makes a difference.
It's just money.
And even when it looks like it's not money, it's money.
Right?
Because if somebody is, let's say, defending their reputation, That's kind of money, really.
So as soon as it gets too expensive to discriminate against white people, which has never been the case, it's always been easy and it would be easier to discriminate against white people, then it would be to explain why you don't have enough diversity.
So as soon as it becomes more expensive to screw white people, there'll be less of it.
But we're not there yet.
All right.
I said it again provocatively, and I'm going to tell you this story only because of the persuasion element of it, because you've heard it before.
As you know, the ADL came after me, and the head of the ADL accused me of being a Holocaust denier in public.
Now, I don't have to defend myself from that, because you should be wise enough to know that's not a thing.
I'm obviously not a Holocaust denier.
They said that in public about me.
Now, the ADL is going after a number of other people in similarly specious ways.
And what I've said is that I don't support Israel because the ADL is my enemy.
And then I also say, because I know how people respond to that, I say, yes, I know they don't report to Israel.
Yes, I know the ADL does not report to Israel.
But that's not my problem.
Now, how many of you think that what I say doesn't make sense in the comments?
Does it not make sense when I say I don't support Israel because the ADL, who is not funded by Israel, came after me?
Does that make sense?
Now remember, I said that Israel doesn't own the ADL, they don't control them, but that's not my problem.
No, my problem is that a substantial entity that has offices in Israel, and they say that their mission is, this is from the ADL's own words, the ADL works to support a secure Jewish and democratic state of Israel, living in peace and security, and for decades they've worked to secure Israel and democratic state, promote a strong and constructive US-Israel relationship.
So, to me, that's the ADL working for Israel.
Now, if you say, but Israel doesn't control them, then I say, let me introduce you to the real world.
May I?
If Israel kicked their ass out of Israel and said, you're embarrassing us so badly that you can't have an office in Israel, you're just making us look like idiots, do you think the ADL could survive that?
If Israel said, hey, just for the record, we want to say this once, the ADL does not represent us, they're a disreputable organization, and we disavow them.
Do you think the ADL could survive that?
Well, the management couldn't.
The ADL probably could, but the management couldn't.
They'd have to change management.
So, when I say I don't support the nation of Israel because the ADL went after me, does that sound crazy?
It's not my problem that they don't directly pay the ADL.
It's true, but that's not my problem.
Here's the thing.
If somebody on your team, who is so on your team that they've got an office in your country and their entire mission, one of the top line mission statements is to make sure that that other country is doing fine, they're working for the same team.
And if somebody on your team is trying to destroy me, which they are, the ADL tried very hard, then no, I do not back Israel and don't ask me to.
All right.
So I don't care if Israel fixes it, but just don't ask me to help.
Now you might say to yourself, um, Scott, how much were you backing Israel before?
Which is a good question.
Do you think that there's anything I do or have done?
That has any impact on Israel in any meaningful way?
In the comments?
Give me your opinion.
Do you think that it means anything?
Or is it just, you know, talking on Twitter?
or x.
Well, here's what I think.
Thank you.
It would depend if you thought I had some influence on the region, or if you thought I was authoring the simulation, it might matter.
But at the moment, I think that the ADL is destroying the reputation of Israel, and that's not my fault.
As long as the ADL and Israel are joined at the hip, I don't support the nation of Israel.
Now, I'm not supporting their destruction, and I'm not supporting the enemies of Israel, and I wasn't donating before, but I definitely don't think the United States should give them any money.
Now, one of the arguments I heard is that, David Boxenhorn makes this argument, that if we didn't fund Israel with the requirement that they buy our weapons, then Israel would create its own weapons manufacturing, because of course they would need weapons, and then we wouldn't have as much influence over them, because they would be independently making their own weapons instead of relying on us.
To which I say, there's a pretty big advantage on relying on us for weapons.
The biggest one is that it's not easy to bomb our one factory.
If Israel had some weapons-making factories, there would probably be two or three that if you took them out of operation, they would be completely out of weapons.
But the United States probably is harder to get to.
Meaning that if the weapons are here and we ship them to Israel, it's probably a safer weapons situation.
So it's a complicated situation, but I don't favor any American money going to Israel as long as they have a better debt situation than we do, as long as the ADL is after me.
So I think Israel has to live with the bad reputation of the ADL at a time when they're getting a lot of A lot of pressure from the outside world.
I do think Israel is giving up their Holocaust chip.
It will never be the same after this.
And that doesn't mean it's the wrong choice, from their perspective.
So let me give you my real opinion of the whole Hamas-Gaza-Israel situation.
I think anybody who's picking the moral, winning side is probably in some kind of a losing conversation.
Because first of all, we don't have any influence.
At least I don't.
I have no influence over that.
So my take is it's like gravity.
My take on the region is that whoever's in charge is going to be the warden, and whoever's not in charge is going to be in jail.
If you were to reverse the situation, The Israelis would feel like they're in jail, even if that's not true, and it would look like the wardens were the Palestinians.
Currently, it looks like Israel has the most power, and whether it's an accurate statement of what's happening or not, the Palestinians feel like they're in jail, and the Israelis are the warden.
If that's not going to change, and it's not, then what you're watching is just a power dynamic playing out.
So, to have an opinion on it feels to me like I'm holding a rock in my hand and I let go of the rock.
Should I have an opinion about whether the rock will fall to Earth?
I could have an opinion, but it would be absurd.
The only thing that makes sense is just to watch it.
Just observe it.
Because you know it's going to go, you know it's gravity, and it has nothing to do with your opinion.
So when I watch things in the Middle East, I think, oh, I think I should add my opinion to this.
For what?
It's just gravity.
Whoever is the strongest entity is going to feel like the weaker entity is being abused, even if it's not true.
And the reason is that the systems are incompatible and they can never be compatible.
There is no way that those groups, the Islamic population and the Jewish population, are going to find a way to live together in peace with two countries next to each other.
To imagine that could happen seems so disconnected from reality.
These are people who, by their central belief system, Can't possibly get along in the way that you imagine people of the same belief system could.
I think we make the mistake of thinking, well, it can't be that different from a red state and a blue state, and yet we find ways to live together, next to each other.
No!
It's not like that at all!
It's not even slightly like that.
The American system, we can disagree with each other, but we know we're under the same system.
Right?
The Constitution In theory, is the umbrella under which we're all arguing.
So we're all trying to be the better versions of adhering to the Constitution.
Maybe sometimes you want to tweak it, but you're still talking about how can we be the better version of a constitutional, you know, citizenship.
Nothing like that's happening over in the Middle East.
In the Middle East, there are two incompatible systems that can never be compatible, and there's only going to be a winner and a loser.
And at the moment, Israel has the upper hand.
To have an opinion on that would be like having an opinion on gravity.
It's just what it is.
It's just what it is.
Now, the opinion I can have is not to associate my own brand or reputation with it.
Because, again, I don't have anything to do with it.
So if I embraced it, then I'm giving something away for free for nothing.
I would be giving away my reputational I don't support Israel, but I don't support their enemies.
it wouldn't make them more successful or less, but it would make me a victim of whatever, you know, abuse I got for having an opinion on it.
So I don't support Israel, but I don't support their enemies.
I love the Jewish people.
You know, my personal relationships have always been amazing with Jewish citizens, as well as Israeli citizens.
Probably one of my favorite demographic groups.
I say that just because some of you are anti-Semitic and it'll make you mad.
But yeah, historically, everything from dating to my best friends have been very heavily weighted toward the Jewish population, because I like smart people.
Is that okay?
I like smart people, and there are a lot of educated Jewish people, and it's fun to talk to smart people.
All right.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is what I had for you today.
I don't know if the Rumble Studio is going to let me talk privately to the locals people, but I'm going to give it a try.
I've refreshed my browser situation, so it might work this time.
