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, Desalinization, Nuclear Power, Kristi Noem's Ghostwriter, Generalized Anxiety Surge, Boeing Whistleblowers, Tesla Layoffs, Movies Decline, Lara Trump, President Trump, Michael Cohen, AI Summarizations, State Senator Kevin Parker, College Protester Funding, RFK Jr., Citizens United, Corporate Kleptocracy, Democrat Projection, Jaime Raskin, Male Leadership, Female Nurturing, Bernie Sanders, Gaza Viet Nam, President Biden, Israel Hamas War, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and there's never been a finer time.
If you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny human brains, all you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank of gel, some styne, a canteen, a jug, 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 hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous step and have us now go.
Well, I'm coming to you on two separate devices today.
Had a little technical difficulties, so there will be no live rumble or live acts.
I'm coming to you on two separate devices on YouTube and Locals with one microphone.
Now, you may be wondering why I'm wearing a different t-shirt today.
Of course, it's the Coffee with Scott Adams official merchandise.
But more importantly, I'm trying to make some distance between me and Scott Galloway, because every time I see him I can't tell the difference between us.
He's a bald guy with glasses, and he's wearing a gray t-shirt, and I thought, I'm gonna have to do something to get some distance.
It's just too confusing for branding.
So I've decided to change my name from Scott Adams, which is just confusing with Scott Galloway, So I've changed my first name to Not, and my last name to Galloway.
So now it'll be Scott Galloway and Not Galloway.
And I will just go as Not Galloway from now on.
Keeps it simpler.
If they're two Scots, you're never going to tell us apart.
But if there's a Scott and a Not, easier.
So that's for you.
You're welcome.
All right, MIT made an astonishing discovery, they say, that light can vaporize water without heat.
That's weird.
So apparently, they found that if you shine the light at a 45 degree angle, and you do just the right things, and you sacrifice a toad to the moon, or whatever they do in science.
I'm not really much of a scientist.
I think they sacrifice toads, but I don't know.
But anyway, they can vaporize water without creating heat.
Now you might say to yourself, Scott, that is the least important, nerdiest thing you've ever said in your entire life.
Why does this have any meaning to me whatsoever?
Well, some people are saying it might be good for desalinization.
Wouldn't that be amazing?
If you could just like shine a light on some water and it would, you know, desalinate salt water.
So that's actually something that might be happening.
And if you could imagine the, if you didn't need heat and all you needed was light, imagine how efficient that would be to desalinate.
Just hold in your mind The possibility that you could take desalinization costs down to a fraction of what they are.
That kind of changes everything, doesn't it?
You'd have unlimited clean water for almost no cost.
You just shine light on it at just the right angle and desalinate it.
So it could be a gigantic thing from a nerdy little thing.
You never know.
They say it might also have some clean energy application.
We'll see.
The head of Bechtel is talking about how nuclear is becoming a thing.
Nuclear everywhere.
So I like to report on this trend because it's the most probably maybe one of the most or the most important thing.
Whether we have enough electricity.
And apparently there's 30 countries are considering or planning nuclear programs.
Twenty more have signaled interest.
A bunch of new power plants are going up.
And a bunch more are in the plans.
So there's going to be a lot more nuclear.
Isn't it funny?
That we think we're this reasonable, we're a bunch of reasonable creatures, human beings.
And we look at the costs of things, and we look at the perceived benefits, and we compare them logically, and we come up with our plans.
Did that happen with nuclear energy?
So nuclear energy went from the scariest thing in the world, so therefore you've got to close them all down and you can't do it, right?
So it was just a fear decision.
Now the fear was not based on, apparently, good information, because people were afraid of the waste.
Turns out you could just store it on site, put it in a barrel, and it's not really a big problem.
And people were afraid of it's going to melt down.
But turns out that the modern nuclear designs have never melted down.
There's never been a current model of nuclear that you would build today.
It's never melted down.
It was always earlier versions that we knew had obvious problems.
So we went from nuclear is the scariest thing in the world, and therefore must be closed down, to climate change is the scariest thing in the world, and you've got to do everything you can to avoid it.
And what can you do to avoid climate change disasters, say, the alarmists?
Well, you could get a lot of nuclear power plants.
So we started with the wrong reason for banning nuclear, which was that it was presumed to be more dangerous than it was.
So basically, the anti-nuclear was just based on fear.
But now that's been completely reversed, and it wasn't because we got smarter.
No.
Is it because our analyses were better?
No.
It's because we found something scarier.
That also probably isn't true.
So we went from, you know, the nuclear waste is going to kill us, there's nothing we know how to do.
Turns out, just put it in a barrel, keep it where it is.
It's fine.
Keep it forever.
And then, you know, it's going to melt down and all this.
So we went from a fake scare against nuclear to a, probably, fake scare against climate change, which completely reversed it, just in time for AI.
There's not a damn thing we do that makes any sense.
We're literally just chasing people with scare stories, and then people are running away, and sometimes it works out.
Did you ever hear that, the old thing, two wrongs don't make a right?
Well, didn't they this time?
Am I misreading this?
So first we had the wrong that nuclear was a bad idea, but we fixed the wrong idea about nuclear by coming up with an even wronger idea about climate change risk.
Am I wrong that two wrongs made a right?
Are we not just where we want to be?
We got our nuclear energy back just in time for robots and AI?
It was literally two wrongs made a right, and it wasn't just two little wrongs.
It was the two biggest wrongs we've probably ever made, probably in the history of humankind.
It'd be hard to find things much wrong than those two things.
But they cancelled out.
So there you go.
Good.
The Christy Noem story just keeps getting better.
Poor Christy Noem.
So, like, it seems like only a few months ago we were talking about her as being a good candidate for VP for Trump.
And then it turned out, allegedly, she was having an affair with Corey Lewandowski, which is sort of really bad if you're Republican running for office.
And then there was a thing in her book that said she shot her own puppy And that wasn't really good.
And then, this is just the best.
This is the best terrible news, because it doesn't really hurt anybody.
It's just weird and embarrassing.
So apparently Kristi Noem has a book about her own life.
This is a quote from the book.
I remember when I met with North Korea dictator Kim Jong-un.
I'm sure he underestimated me, having no clue about my experience staring down little tyrants.
I'd been a children's pastor after all.
So then she's asked on a news show, did you meet Kim Jong-un?
Turns out she didn't.
It was written in her book and I guess it got published with a whole fake story about meeting Kim Jong-un and staring him down.
And she had to go on TV on a book tour and explain why her own book she hadn't read.
Because she clearly had not read her own book.
Because she wouldn't have left it in there if, you know, such a glaring thing that didn't happen.
You wouldn't accidentally leave in a story about meeting Kim Jong-un when everybody knows you could fact-check it.
Oh my God, how embarrassing.
That is embarrassing.
But it gets worse.
Did you think I was done?
No, Christie has more.
She has more for us.
Apparently she went on a news program and suggested that, or maybe it was the book, that suggested that maybe Commander of the Dog should be shot too.
Now, let me give you some context.
Now, let me give you some context.
Let me give you some context.
I'll give you a little context, okay?
Now, I worked on a farm for much of my younger days.
My uncle had a farm in walking distance.
So I'd often spend a lot of time on the farm.
And if you've been around farms, especially dairy farms and I guess other kinds of farms, you see A level of real-world decisions that you don't have to see in other jobs.
So, ending the life of an animal is not an unusual thing on a farm, even your dog.
I've never seen that happen, personally.
But, you know, it's well within the normal farmer behavior to kill a bad dog.
Unfortunately, I'm not in favor of it, of course.
But not that unusual.
So I wouldn't, I wouldn't falter for her decision making.
I don't, you know, I don't support it.
But, you know, people do what they do on the farm and, you know, they're tough decisions.
But then she, it's the talking about it that's the problem.
I think we can all agree on that, right?
If you're trying to be a national politician, don't ever mention shooting your own dog.
Hey, here's what you should not consider.
There were good reasons.
No, no.
There may have been good reasons to shoot her dog.
I think it's a thing.
But no, don't mention it.
Maybe better not mentioning it.
Yeah, that's my advice.
And certainly don't mention that you want to shoot the president's dog because that's a bad dog too.
So, bad news cycle for Christie.
But the real question I have is, do you think the Ghost Rider maybe should be looked into a little bit?
How exactly does a ghostwriter make up a story about a North Korea Kim Jong-un meeting?
How do you make that up?
What, did he think he remembered it?
Did he look at his notes, he or she?
Did they look at their notes and say, hmm, according to my notes, you met with Kim Jong-un, and then just wrote it down and nobody checked?
How in the world?
I'll tell you what it looks like.
What it looks like is that it was an op.
It looks like somebody was trying to take her out and they put something in her book knowing she wouldn't read it.
It looks exactly like it was intentional.
And I have some questions about who was that ghostwriter?
I wonder who that was.
I don't know if you've seen that Joshua Lysak, who is not the ghostwriter for that project, but he's using it to advertise his own services.
Will not let you put in your book, shot a dog.
That's his entire commercial.
Ghostwriting services will not let you say you shot a dog in your book.
We'll prevent you from doing that.
No.
No.
I'm better than the other ghostwriters who would let you say you shot a dog.
I would not let you do that.
And that's what I call quality.
Right there.
All right, so this will surprise you.
Apparently, I think Axios was reporting this, that mental health problems are way up 40% nationally from 2019 to 2023.
I wonder if anything happened between 2019 and 2023.
I wonder if anything happened between 2019 and 2023.
The pandemic.
So, apparently old people are having more mental illness and everybody's having more mental illness and every age is going crazier.
And the biggest increase is Generalized Anxiety Disorder.
Generalized Anxiety Disorder.
Which I do talk to a lot of people who have some kind of generalized anxiety disorder.
Usually women.
But I would imagine men have it too.
And I would say that the reasons for it are all pretty obvious.
Here's the main reason.
Others have said this, but let me just summarize some reasons.
In the old days, the only problems you had were the ones that were local.
In other words, all you knew about was what was happening to you, because you didn't have any telecommunications or anything.
So you could limit all the things you worried about to, you know, your food and your safety, which were big problems, but you knew what to do.
So you just get busy trying to keep yourself safe and trying to get yourself some food.
So those are simple times.
Now we have the Internet.
That's telling you there's all these other risks that are coming to get you.
That climate change is going to kill you, they'd say.
Trump is going to be a Nazi, they say.
We're running out, the debt is going to kill us all.
Russia might nuke us.
There's like a million things to worry about.
You know, there's the Locust, you name it.
Now, we're not really designed or evolved, if you prefer.
We're not made to worry about all the problems in the world at the same time.
We're made to worry about our own stuff.
And so if you take your own stuff and add to it all the problems in the world, You can imagine it would give you some generalized anxiety that you can't put a finger on because it's just everything from everywhere.
So that's got to be part of it.
The other part of course is social media gives us comparisons to make us feel bad and makes you concentrate on your internal who you are and all that's bad for your mental health.
And then there's the fact that maybe we don't have enough to do.
That we're not in survival mode, so we just start thinking about things that are not survival related until we worry ourselves to death.
There's some of that.
I think among the older people, loneliness is probably, well, even the young.
I would say the loneliness epidemic is causing mental health problems.
And we don't quite appreciate the depth of that.
Let me tell you one problem that you can never get sympathy for.
Are you ready for it?
I'm lonely.
Do you think you can get sympathy for that?
Nope.
Because everybody thinks you can solve it.
Well, just go talk to some people.
If it were easy to solve, everybody would have solved it.
Apparently there's something about life that makes that hard to solve.
I think loneliness is a gigantic thing, and society is not organized so that you have a natural way to meet people.
And the more single people there are, and there's a huge increase in single people and childless couples and stuff, there's going to be way more loneliness.
But here's the Here's the variable that tells you maybe all of the statistics are fake.
Now, I told you that all the numbers are up, right?
That there's way more mental health problems that have been diagnosed, or people seeking help for mental health.
Here's something I didn't tell you, and it's in the article.
Maybe it's because people have more access to telehealth and there's less stigma.
Let me tell you what I wouldn't have said to anybody when I was a teenager.
I have a mental health problem.
I never would have said that.
Even if I did.
Maybe I did.
I wouldn't have said it.
In my 20s?
Nope.
Wouldn't have said it.
But today, it's almost like a badge of honor, right?
It's like a thing you want to say on social media.
You actually want to post in public.
Oh, I have this or that condition, and I'm on the spectrum, and I've got ADHD, and I've got generalized anxiety, and I've got depression.
And now it's no longer stigmatized.
It's actually something that people can get attention for.
So if you make it really, really easy to seek help, which is what telehealth does, you don't have to leave the house, and you make it instead of something that makes you look weak, it's something that gives you some attention.
So, of course, it'd be a lot more reported.
But I do think there's more actual.
So I don't think the fact that people are willing to talk about it is the full story.
I think it's really social media and the entire, probably the entire structure of society is making us crazy.
So maybe we should do something about that.
Well, you know, Boeing had those two whistleblowers who died suspiciously.
A suspicious suicide and a suspicious fast-growing, you know, quick-growing, what was it, bacterial infection or something that looked a little suspicious.
Now, nobody in law enforcement has said that these are not natural deaths, but they're kind of coincidental.
Two whistleblowers, same company, both died fairly suspiciously.
But here's the fun part.
There's ten more whistleblowers.
Ten more.
Now, do you think the ten more whistleblowers are real?
Or are they just being influenced by the news?
Like, suddenly everybody wants to be a whistleblower.
Kind of a copycat thing?
Or do they really have ten different stories of things so bad they're willing to risk their lives?
Because they would think they're risking their life at this point.
So, we'll keep an eye on that.
I don't know what these whistleblowers have to say, but if you would be a whistleblower in the context of the first two dying suspiciously, you must really have something to say.
Is that fair?
Like, in the current environment, you must really feel it's important or you wouldn't be coming forward.
We'll see.
If I had to guess, there will not be 10 whistleblowers.
So if I had to guess, I would guess against this being a real story.
So if you want to check my BS detector, I do not believe there'll be 10.
I wouldn't be surprised if there's another one, but not 10.
There's something wrong with that story.
It doesn't smell right.
Yeah, it doesn't smell right.
Tesla is reportedly going to do a round of 10,000 layoffs.
And people are thinking there might be lots more rounds coming.
But the Tesla layoffs Seem perfectly timed for robots, don't they?
Is it a coincidence that robots for assembly lines are being introduced in Tesla with their own robots at just about the same time they're massively cutting staff?
It could be that that's not unrelated.
It could be that Musk knows he needs to get ahead of it and make sure that when the robots are introduced, he has the right level of human staffing to support that.
And not too much human staffing.
Or it's just a sign that all the car companies are having trouble and Tesla needs to sell more cars or cuts their costs.
That's what I think.
I think I need another sip of coffee.
Oh, that's good.
Yep, that was exactly what I needed right there.
All right.
So, uh, Unusual Whales is reporting on X.
I guess there's a movie called The Fall Guy.
Mm.
How many of you had heard there's a movie called The Fall Guy?
You've heard of it?
I guess I'm not even paying attention to new movies.
Is it based on the old TV show or something?
And it costs $125 million to make, and it brought in just $28.5 million in its first weekend.
Despite having big stars and no competition and a big ad campaign.
So Bloomberg is kind of sounding the alarm that maybe moviegoing is dead.
Now let me ask you this.
For much of my life, I had what I would call a movie-watching habit.
Meaning that, you know, before there was Netflix, I had a habit of wanting to see new movies that, you know, got a lot of hype.
I'd want to see them in the theater.
And then when it became more streaming and Netflix and stuff, I had a movie habit where, especially if you're in a relationship and, you know, you've already had dinner and you've had your fun, there's not many things more fun Than spooning and watching a bad movie that you don't really care about.
Like it's sort of like a good time.
But once you get out of that habit, and I think the pandemic broke a lot of habits.
Because there wasn't really much to watch in terms of movies.
So I just got out of the habit.
And I find that I don't think about movies.
I don't want to watch them.
I don't have a... There's no part of my routine in which they fit.
You know, there's not a part of my night where I say, hmm, this is where I'd normally be watching a movie.
And when you compare it to Reels on Instagram, 100% of the time, if I scroll through the Reels, is it Reels?
Is that what they call them on Instagram?
Or is Reels YouTube?
I can't remember what words are on which social media platforms.
But anyway, if I just pick up Instagram and just flip through the videos, I will be entertained 100% of the time.
Would you agree?
Do you have the shorts?
I don't know, whatever they're called.
On YouTube, they're called shorts, and on Insta, they're reels, I'm being told.
That sounds right.
But do you have the same experience?
The Instagram or TikTok, if you prefer, gives you a 100% good experience every time.
Like, I really like watching cats hugging each other.
And so Instagram gives me cats hugging other cats and other dogs.
And I could look at that all day long.
Just give me another cat and another dog.
It's sort of like porn.
I'll never get tired of it.
You just have to change out the characters now and then.
All right, orange cat.
Let's see a tiger cat.
Let's see a different cat.
Different dog.
Oh, yeah, that's all I need.
Just change out the characters.
So yeah, movies are done.
And Rasmussen, was it Rasmussen?
Yeah.
Rasmussen did a poll.
71% of American adults agree with the statement that Disney should return to its wholesome programming and allow parents to decide when their children are taught about sexuality.
So, as you know, Disney went full LGBTQ+, so their movies are stocked with full of gay and non-binary and interesting characters.
And the parents are not so cool on that.
But 22% disagree.
So 22% say, keep that sexuality in my Disney movies for my children.
The gayer the better.
And once again, that 25%-ish of people who want Disney to teach their children to be gay, I might be exaggerating exactly what's going on a little bit, but it does feel like 22% of parents said, you know, Disney can teach my children to be gay.
I don't know how they were born, but I'm sure Disney can program them just right.
Meanwhile, over at the RNC, I've been really curious to see how Lara Trump would do as the co-chair of the RNC.
Because if you don't follow her on social media, you might not be aware of what a beast she is.
And I mean that in only a complimentary way.
Have you ever seen Lara Trump's workout videos?
She'll post them on social media, just like a little snippet of a workout and stuff.
She isn't just fit.
She's insanely fit.
You know, like a woman doing pull-ups fit.
Like crazy fit.
And I always thought to myself that you don't, you can't keep that up for years and years as she has.
You can't keep that up unless you have a certain kind of aggressive, assertive personality.
And I can't think of a better combination of aggressive, assertive, you know, break through a wall kind of vibe to her personality.
It's like the perfect choice to be the RNC co-chair.
So apparently they're going to use the law to go after various situations, such as Nevada wants to be able to count ballots after elections are over.
To, like, change the result after the election's already been called.
And the RNC is going to sue them and say, no, you can't count votes after the election's over.
It should be over on the day of the election.
No, I think that's a reasonable position, and there are some other states they're going after.
So, yes, if the Republicans are going full lawfare on the elections, that's exactly right.
Because it's got to be at least a fair fight, right?
If the Democrats are doing full legal maneuvers to get the election rules the way they want, the only way it's a fair contest is if both sides do it.
And I don't think we had that level of aggression there before.
And I think Laura from, you know, she's interviewed me a few times, so I have, you know, brief contact with her.
But my sense of it is, you needed somebody who could just push through a brick wall.
And she certainly signals, I mean I don't know her that well, but she signals that a brick wall would not slow her down.
So that might be one of Trump's best hires, indirectly I guess.
Judge Mershon has once again found Trump in contempt for saying stuff, and any future violations will be punished with incarceration, he says.
So now it's getting interesting.
Do you think Judge Mershon is going to put Trump in jail?
Do you think Trump is going to shut up?
Because I don't.
I think Trump's going to push it all the way to jail.
I think he doesn't want to go to jail.
Not even for a day.
But I think his personality just isn't going to let him leave this alone.
I think he's going to push it all the way to jail.
Meaning that they're going to have to put him in jail to shut him up.
And I hate to say how much I love it.
I love the fact that even this won't stop him from saying what he wants to say.
And if you want to guarantee he wins, put him in jail.
Put him in jail for a day.
If you want to guarantee it.
He's really begging for it at this point.
Because I want to see the picture of him in jail.
I want to see him behind bars and know that it was a setup and it was a stupid case and that at the end he wins, because I'm sure he will, because the case is empty.
So let's have that conversation.
So, while that's happening, Jonathan Turley's making fun of the Michael Cohen testimony.
Is that today?
Is Michael Cohen testifying today?
Or soon?
But he's the star witness.
And this is how Jonathan Turley characterizes it in an ex-post.
He says, Cohen will try to convince the jury to put his former client, that would be Trump, former client in jail for following his own legal advice.
He says, Torelli says, this would be difficult even for a competent and ethical lawyer.
For Cohen, it is utter insanity.
Totally is a treasure.
But I love this sentence.
He'll try to convince the jury to put his former client in jail for following his own legal advice.
That's the perfect summary.
I was listening to a clip by Naval Ravikant just yesterday, and he was talking about things that AI can't do.
And it's a short list.
Like, AI is never as smart as you in your own domain of expertise.
That seems to be true.
That was one of the things that Naval listed.
But another one is... What was I going to say?
I'm trying to remember what Naval said.
You can't listen to them if it's in your own domain.
Oh, and you can't summarize.
So, one of the things that AI can't do, according to Naval, is summarize.
And I've never noticed that before.
But it's true.
Because summarizing is a very human thing.
It's what comedians do.
Now, A.I.
can't do comedy either, and I think it's related.
Because what makes a comedic summary funny is that it just gets to that, you know, really thing you're thinking about.
Like, it just hits that little nerve that's just the one that's the most active for the human.
And the A.I.
doesn't know what nerve is going to be, you know, the one that gets you going as a human.
It just can't know that.
But a human can summarize.
So when Turley summarizes this, as Cohen will try to convince the jury to put his former client in jail for following his own legal advice, that is a great summary.
That is a great, great summary.
Which is very hard.
Right?
Summarizing is super hard.
That's why the AI can't do it.
But you can see that that Turley can hit that note, because he's a human.
Alright, a CNN SSRS poll says that 76% of registered voters who back Trump say they'll cast a ballot for him regardless of a conviction in the Bragg case.
76% said they'll vote, they'll back him.
Now these are Trump supporters, so that would be roughly a quarter of Trump supporters would not support him if he gets put in, if he gets convicted on fake charges.
So if Trumped-up fake charges convict him, a quarter of his supporters are not going to support him?
When he's been victimized by the very system he says he's going to fix for you?
That 25% thing is so sticky.
It is so sticky.
Yeah, I don't believe the poll.
Doesn't that sound like that's a ridic- Have you ever met anybody Who is a Trump supporter who said, but you know, if they find him guilty on that, whatever made up bullshit, stupid thing that they're charging him for now, I'll stop supporting him.
I've never heard that.
Has anybody ever heard an actual Trump supporter, like a real one, say that if the lawfare gets them, they'll stop supporting?
I don't think this is real.
I don't trust that.
All right, karma's coming to get ya.
Do you remember how the law was changed in New York to open a temporary window in which you could sue people for sexual problems and other crimes that normally would be past the statute of limitations?
But it was a little window they opened, And coincidentally, it allowed E. Jean Carroll to sue Trump, when normally the statute would have been expired, statute of limitations.
But because of the special little window that New York opened, they got him.
So a special little window.
So how'd that work out?
Well, there's this Democrat state senator, Kevin Parker, he represents Brooklyn, and he voted for it, as did all the Democrats, because it was a get-Trump thing.
And then it turns out that some old accusations against him have just surfaced.
The New York Post reports that now he says that the thing he voted for is unconstitutional because it's biting him in the ass.
So not only Is there a charge against the Mayor Adams?
He's got some old incident from 1993 that came out and bit him.
But now a Democratic state senator has the same problem.
So they passed a law to make it possible to come after people from past charges and the people who passed the law are being sued for their alleged past behavior.
Now that's fun.
It's not Kristi Noem shoots her dog fun, but it's a lot of fun.
Is it my imagination that all of the news is in Trump's favor lately?
Have you noticed it's just like all in his favor?
Well, here's some more that's in his favor.
So, do you remember I've been saying, maybe starting two weeks ago, I said, why don't we understand yet where the funding is coming for all the college protests?
Does anybody remember me saying that?
And I said, huh, there can only be one reason that we don't know.
What's the only reason that they wouldn't tell us on the news who's funding it?
The only reason could be it's coming from inside our country.
And that somebody who is powerful enough to control the news, powerful enough to control the news, doesn't want you to know who's funding it.
But, I think Alan Dershowitz sort of broke the seal on that in one of his videos, and he said it's the biggest Democrat donors who are funding it.
Now, indirectly, through organizations they fund, or fund other organizations.
But apparently the Soros organization Some kind of Rockefeller... What is it?
David Rockefeller Jr.
He's got some Rockefeller fund.
There's the Pritzkers, and there's allegedly the Gates Foundation, but I think Gates has already denied that they fund these groups.
So I think the news is incorrect, potentially, about Gates, but might be correct about the others.
And now the news is asking about it, so Jake Tapper asked Mitch Landrieu, who's a top Biden advisor, he said, you know, basically, what do you have to say about these Democrat funders who are also funding the demonstrations?
And Mitch Landrieu said, everybody has a right to protest.
They all have a right to protest.
Yeah, that's not really the question, is it?
The question is, do the Democrats want to fund anti-Jewish demonstrations?
Because they are!
Now, now you know why you didn't know this earlier, right?
The reason it wasn't reported earlier is it's bad for Democrats.
And the news is mostly Democrats.
So they simply just didn't report it.
Now, why are they reporting it now?
So Politico had a story, CNN's talking about it, and now everybody's talking about it.
It's because it got out.
It's because once Dershowitz said it, and the people on the right knew it, because we knew it already, it's only the left who are just finding out.
So I think they're just getting ahead of it because they couldn't suppress it anymore.
That's my guess.
Yeah. So...
That seems to be as positive as you could possibly get.
So here's why the college protests are happening.
It's a combination of Democrat major donors, who I suspect didn't have control of where their money went, but certainly could cut funding from them in the future if they wanted.
They just haven't done it.
But if you add Democrat money from these big donors to batshit crazy women, because most of the protesters seem to be batshit crazy young women whose brains are not developed, So if you add ineffective brains and people who are having all kinds of mental problems, and you add a lot of money to it, you get this.
So never, never mix large amounts of money with mental illness.
But that's what the Democrats have decided to do.
They found the most mentally ill group in their own group, the young women.
And by the way, that's not an opinion.
Just statistically, they're the most mentally ill by far.
And then they decided to give them massive amounts of money to bitch about stuff.
And there we are.
There we are.
So everything is explained.
And follow the money was exactly the right way to find out what was going on.
Yeah, it was coming from inside the house.
Now, I'm going to take a little bit of a credit for telling you it was coming from inside the house.
Because I think I was on that early.
I didn't know who it was, but it was obvious it was coming from inside the house, because the way the news covered it was they were hiding it.
And there wouldn't be any reason to hide it unless it was coming from inside the house, and that's exactly what it was.
But they can't hide it anymore, so now we've got to talk about it.
All right.
RFK Jr.
is saying that as president, he's going to launch a drive across the states to pass a constitutional amendment To overrule Citizens United.
Now that's the case that allowed corporations to give unlimited money to political campaigns, I believe.
And he said, we're no longer living in a democracy, we're living in a corporate kleptocracy.
And it was an absolute disaster.
It's why Biden now has $3 billion to spend on his campaign.
It's from corporate donors.
$3 billion?
My God.
So, I like the fact that RFK Jr.
is saying directly, we don't live in a democracy anymore.
That's important.
Because I think when we pretend that we're in a democracy, we don't have any kind of We don't have any way to fix it if you can't talk about it.
So I think it's very important that a top candidate says this is not a democracy.
Because it's definitely not.
I mean, it's not even close.
It's just a kleptocracy.
The people paying the money get the benefits.
That's all it is.
He calls it a kleptocracy, but what do I call it?
We're the government is a criminal entity.
It's a criminal organization Now he says kleptocracy But that's the same thing It's that's the specific crime is stealing ship.
That's the crime Well Trump was in a some kind of a private meeting, but it got out I guess a donor meeting and he said the White House He said that Biden was like the Gestapo police.
He basically said that the lawfare against him was like the Nazi Gestapo.
And then the White House, they slammed him for comparing the Gestapo police in Nazi Germany to them.
Jay, it would certainly be terrible if somebody who was running for president compared the competitor to a Nazi.
Wouldn't that be terrible?
We've never seen that before.
That'd be terrible.
So Representative Jamie Raskin came on and he talked about that and he said, every accusation by Trump is a confession.
Huh, where have we heard that before?
It's almost like they accuse you of the thing they're guilty of, which is what the Democrats do.
So now they're accusing Trump... Wait, hold on, I'm getting confused here.
They're accusing Trump of doing the thing... Ah, it's all confusing now.
Yeah, I think it's projection squared.
So we've been accusing, you know, obviously.
Many of us have accused Democrats of always projecting and saying that the Republicans are doing what they're doing.
So now they're accusing Trump of projecting.
So not only were they projecting, but when they were accused of projecting, They projected the projection on the people who accused them of projecting.
All right, I got it.
That was it, right?
Yeah, it took me a while to sort that out.
But the other thing I say is that the Democrats try to craft an argument out of just words.
Whereas Trump says stuff like, build a wall, there are too many immigrants.
That's not words.
That's like a real policy with a physical thing.
That's real.
But when the Democrats talk, there's no real thing to it.
It's just words that fit in a sentence.
So here's Raskin.
Every accusation by Trump is a confession.
We've never had presidential candidates, much less presidents, talk like that before.
What?
That's every Democrat every day calling, like, what?
Oh my God.
He said, there's always been a very strong degree of civility at that level.
What?
And so it telegraphs some very dark intentions on his part.
So, So the Democrats are trying to put Trump in jail using lawfare to keep him off the election.
Basically a Nazi kind of a strategy to take out your opponent.
And their defense is words.
Every accusation is a confession.
It's part of his dark intentions.
Let us compare.
Trump is talking about a real thing.
Lawfare.
Real criminal cases.
He's actually sitting in court being tortured by these very people.
A real thing.
His ass is actually on an actual bench or chair or wherever it is.
His physical ass is in a place it doesn't want to be, in the real world, because of their actions, which are clearly unethical, if not unlawful.
But in return, they're living in this world of words, where you got the accusation is a confession, and there's some dark intentions in my imagination of my mind reading of the things he's thinking, but he hasn't said.
It's words versus actions all the way.
Until you see it, you can't see it until you see it.
But once you see it, it's all you can see.
All they have is words against actual real things.
Now, you could agree or disagree about the actual real things and real policies, but you can't argue that the Republicans are not talking about real things.
And the Democrats don't have any real things to talk about.
Because they're doing worse on the economy, worse on war, worse on inflation.
Basically, they're losing every poll on everything, except words.
Now, I'd like to add one more thing.
I keep hearing people say that they think, people on the right, saying that there are demons and, like, evil among us.
And some people are like, maybe just demons.
Have you ever had that impression where you look at somebody and you think to yourself, I feel like you're a demon.
Like you don't register quite as human.
Have you ever noticed that?
And Jamie Raskin is that person for me.
Like, if I listen to, you know, like Kinzinger or Cheney or somebody, if I'm listening to somebody I just disagree with, I don't automatically say, oh, you look like a demon.
Sometimes I say, you look like you're mentally ill.
Sometimes I say, oh, you're just a political actor and you're just trying to be political.
Or I just disagree.
Or you're just cynical.
Like, usually normal kinds of words.
But when I watch Jamie Raskin, my brain interprets him as a demon.
I don't know why.
Does anybody have that same impression?
I'm not saying he's a demon, so just to be clear.
As far as I know, he's a regular human being.
But my brain can't tell.
My brain actually translates him into like a non-human demon kind of creature.
It's very unusual.
I wouldn't say it about many people.
But I mean, even Schiff doesn't look like a demon.
Does he?
He just looks like he's a like a weird little lying character who knows exactly what he's doing.
But there's something about Raskin.
I don't know.
It feels like a different level.
Meanwhile, the New York Times is saying that.
Well, yeah, I guess it's enough of that.
New York Times is saying that Trump is more popular with the young than we thought.
There's a new poll.
New York Times, Siena College poll that says he's neck and neck, that Biden and Trump are neck and neck with 18 to 29 year olds.
Neck and neck with 18 to 29 year olds.
Do you believe it?
Well, the other polls don't support that.
The other polls don't.
But you know what I think?
I think the other polls are going to catch up.
Do you know why?
College protests.
Yeah.
I think men just flipped.
Young men in particular.
I think young men just said, no, this college protest stuff, no.
No, we're on the other side now.
And here's what the New York Times doesn't report.
Because, you know, you're used to the New York Times giving news that's bad for Trump and good for Democrats, right?
But they finally—they always have to catch up to reality eventually.
They can deny, for example, the story about who's funding the protesters.
But once it's out there, they have to act like they were covering it all along.
You know, they have to catch up to it.
That's what's happening.
But now the New York Times is doing a little catch-up with the young people moving toward Trump.
But what's missing from the story?
So they're saying that young people are moving strongly toward Trump.
Something's missing in the story, isn't it?
The most important part of the story.
Yeah, the most important part is left out, at least of the headline.
I didn't read the detail.
But at the headline level, they left out the only important part.
It's men.
It's men.
It's all men.
Men are done.
They're done watching women destroy the world.
And they watch the protests and they don't see any real men.
They see, you know, external protesters who are, you know, sort of professionals.
They see beta men with their little garbage pail shields being beat up by the cops.
And mostly angry women.
And I think men are just saying, I don't want any part of that.
I do not want to be associated with any of that.
So men are leaving like crazy.
Do you know why they don't report that it's men?
Do you know why?
Because if they report it's men, they're going to have to say why.
Can't say why.
They cannot tell you why the men are abandoning the Democrats.
Can they?
No.
Because if they told you that, the whole game unwinds.
Yeah, the whole game comes apart if they tell you why men are losing.
That's the key.
The key is to remind people that men, especially young ones, are no longer okay with the situation I have just activated.
Let me explain men for you, okay?
In case there are some women here who don't know anything about men.
We're all different, like every other group.
You know, there's different kinds of men.
Millions of different varieties.
But there is one quality that men have, maybe a little bit more than women.
And it looks like this.
There's a lot of stuff we don't care about.
We just don't care.
We care about stuff that we care about, but there's a whole bunch of stuff we don't care about.
Until we do.
And when we do, things change.
And pretty quickly.
And I think that we didn't care about a lot of stuff.
Oh, you know, you want to do some LGBT stuff?
That's fine.
You want to do some DEI stuff?
Yeah, that's fine.
You know, a little more diversity is good.
And, you know, it just keeps going and going and going.
But men are sort of binary in one way.
We're okay with it, whatever it is.
We're okay with it, until we're not.
And it's just binary.
It just flips.
And I think it just flipped for a lot of men.
You know, more are coming.
And I think that you can watch this stuff and not care about it up to a certain level, and then when you realize it means you can't get a job, all these young men in college, I think they figured out they can't get jobs, because the women and the diverse groups are going to take their jobs, unless they're diverse themselves.
So at least among the white men, they're realizing that the entire system has ganged up on them, and they're sort of done with it.
They're sort of done with it.
And I think black men are having the same realization.
That there's something terribly female about the way things are going and women should not be in charge of security.
And I'm going to say this as many times as it takes until you all agree with me.
Women should not be in charge of national security or any other kind of security.
Now that doesn't mean individual women can't be great at it because they can.
You know, there are plenty of police chiefs who are female, doing a great job.
Plenty of, you know, mayors who are female, doing a great job.
So it's not about individuals.
It's about the group.
You can't let the group of women decide what the country does.
Individual women?
Absolutely.
But not the group.
Because the group is a bunch of people who are designed for nurturing.
You're designed.
Evolution.
Or God, whatever you want, but you're not designed for defense.
Men are designed to kill people.
We're designed for violence.
We're designed for enough violence so that you can have your baby in peace.
We have to be violent so that you don't have to be.
Because you can't be violent when you're taking care of a child.
You need somebody else, a third party, to be violent to keep the mountain lions and the other people away.
Because you don't have any way to defend yourself if you're a mother with a small child.
So we are built for this.
Men are built to protect your country, protect your house.
And they're not allowed to do it because our political process, you know, makes everybody equal.
And that's a terrible mistake.
We're not equal in that way.
And again, individuals are all over the place.
So there may be, you know, plenty of individual women who are perfect for the job.
But you can't let the group of women vote on stuff that has to do with security.
You're going to get the wrong answer every time.
You need men to close your border.
You need men to calm down these college protests.
You need men to decide when to go to war and when not, although we're terrible at that because we like our war too much.
But yeah.
I think we need to be able to say that loud.
And the thing that we always get wrong is treating the group like an individual.
You can allow that there are plenty of individuals who are not like the group and still say that the group acts like a group, no matter how many exceptions there are.
Even Bernie Sanders is saying that the Gaza situation might be Biden's Vietnam, he said on Thursday.
Lyndon Johnson, in many respects, was a very good president, domestically, but because of Vietnam, he had to step down.
Well, that's interesting, because, coincidentally, I had asked ChatGPT just yesterday why Johnson didn't run for a final term.
Because I kind of wondered, like, I learned it, but I didn't know why.
And so Chet GPT said he didn't want to run for another term because he wanted to concentrate on his domestic agenda, which was so awesome.
But Bernie says it's because he couldn't win because of the Vietnam War.
So who writes history?
Bernie or Chet GPT?
Those are different histories.
History is all fake.
If you didn't know it.
Basically, all of your history is fake.
Always has been.
But my question would be, is Biden more like Lyndon Johnson or more like Hitler?
Well, let's examine.
And by the way, the name that's becoming popularized for Biden is Schiller.
Which is very funny, because you normally think that Hitler is as bad as you can get in your insults.
If you call a leader Hitler, you think, well, I'm done.
I mean, can't get worse than that.
Well, it turns out you can.
You could be Hitler, But also made out of shit.
It's the only way you can be worse than Hitler.
So people are calling Biden, uh, uh, a-hole Schiller.
A-hole Schiller.
That's right.
That's right.
And, uh, he's a member of the turd Reich.
The turd Reich.
Yeah.
And you may have heard of a book about the concept.
It's called The Diarrhea of Anne Frank.
No?
Too far?
Too far, wasn't it?
That's too far.
Yeah.
So, uh, a whole Hitler, uh, is trying to get his, uh, the, the major candidate against him, trying to get him put in jail, trying to get RFK Jr.
assassinated by giving him no anything, um, to be, uh, and, and of course suppressing free speech everywhere.
To me, it looks very a-hole Schiller.
Yeah, very a-hole Schiller.
Meanwhile, Biden has halted ammunition shipments to Israel, probably just to put some pressure on them because Israel is getting ready to invade Rafah, which would require all the people who had moved from the north into the south to move again.
But to where?
I don't know.
But they need to clear out the citizens as much as possible before they move in.
So it looks like nothing's going to stop Israel from doing what it needs to do.
But there's a new, I guess there's some energy around the idea of having a Gaza International Peacekeeping Force of the Muslim countries.
But we don't know which Muslim countries.
Yeah, we don't know what a peacekeeping force would look like.
But if the peacekeeping force happened to be, let's say, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, You can imagine the situation where Israel could live with it.
Because if it's managed by countries that it already has good relationships with, or good enough, it could work.
However, I don't think that Israel will ever release military control.
So when you say that there might be international peacekeeping forces, They wouldn't be in charge.
I can't imagine.
Can you?
It seems to me that the only way it would work is if Israel stays in charge forever.
At least on the security level.
But they might have some kind of administration or police force.
Maybe a police force that's from the Arab countries that are trying to help out.
Maybe.
But of course, the ceasefire, because Hamas is saying, you know, we'll give you the hostages if you just move all your troops and surrender.
Do you remember when I told you there's not going to be a ceasefire?
Why doesn't the news even report that there's a conversation about a ceasefire?
Is there nobody in the news business who knows there's no chance of a ceasefire?
No, Israel said exactly what it's going to do.
It's going to kill every single person who was involved in the attack.
They're not going to leave a few.
They've been very clear about that in a Jean-Pierre Katrina, whatever the hell her name is, way.
Been very clear about that.
Now, I think when Israel says something that clear, you kind of have to think it's really going to happen.
Let us be really clear about this.
We're going to kill every one of them.
I think they mean that.
You know, the combatants, not the civilians, of course.
So that's what you got going.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, did I miss any big stories?
Is there anything going on that I should have mentioned that I didn't?
I don't think so.
I think we did what we need to do here.
It might be time to go do something else.
Yeah.
All right.
I'm just looking at some of your comments for a moment.
See if I miss anything.
Well, thank you.
Thank you.
Yeah.
Best show ever.
Probably.
Probably.
All right, your comments are random and they sound drunken in some cases.
But not the locals people who are all brilliant and sexy.
All right, that's all I have for you YouTube.
I'm going to say bye now.
I'm going to spend a little more time with just the good folks on Locals.
Thanks for joining.
Tomorrow I might be on Rumble and X as well, if everything works.
