God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Biden Body Doubles, Motivated Data Reliability, Venezuela Election, Michael McFaul, Zombie Election Monitors, VP Harris Favorability Spike, Mark Kelly, Crime Data Hoax, Economy Data Hoax, Hoax Data Techniques, Immigration Data Hoax, Word Definition Changes, Google Search Suppression, Trump Assassination Attempt, Vivek Ramaswamy, Persuasion Word Weird, SCOTUS Reform Proposals, Illegal Immigrant Benefits, MAGA Cult Accusations, Joe Navarro, Total Wealth Tax Proposals, Israel Lebanon Conflict, 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
If you'd like to take this experience up to levels that historians will not even be able to explain later, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine.
At the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better, it's called the simultaneous sip that happens.
Oh, good.
Yeah, excellent.
Technology is working great.
Thank you, Paul.
And I'm just going to say it.
I don't think that that Joe Biden we've been seeing walking to the helicopter looks like Joe Biden to me.
So I'm going to be in the camp that says, yeah, the Biden body double has been active.
Have you seen the one that looks tall?
So there's one that looks tall.
The sound is working.
Must be the trolls.
Trolls may be complaining.
I just saw all the sound is working.
Anyway, in my opinion, that does not look like Joe Biden.
However, I could be wrong.
And one way I could be wrong is some of the people are comparing his height to Jill.
But where he's tall, she's wearing flats.
And where he's not as tall, she's wearing heels.
So maybe it's just an illusion.
But even if you took Joe Biden out of the scene, so you couldn't see, if you couldn't see, he still doesn't look like Joe Biden to me.
I mean, I've seen him enough times.
I know what he looks like.
He doesn't look like that.
So I have a question of whether Biden is alive.
And I'm not even 100% sure that we saw Joe Biden when he did that address.
Probably, because if it were a fake, it would have looked better, I think.
I mean, he looked like he was barely capable.
But maybe.
So my guess is that Biden has maybe, you know, an hour a day that they can get him to do something if they drug him just right.
But probably is just incoherent most of the day is my guess.
We would see a lot more of him if he were coherent.
I think you would all agree with that.
So, I think it's obvious that we don't know who's running the country.
Now, that's not hyperbole, is it?
I don't think that's hyperbole.
You know, sometimes you say, oh, we don't know who's in charge of the country, but you sort of really do.
But in this case, we actually genuinely, no exaggeration, really don't know.
Don't know.
You know, the thinking is that Jill Biden's in charge, but probably not.
You know, I don't know.
What is the role of Hunter?
I don't know.
But my guess is that the various departments are just doing their thing, like they're little dictators.
And then they check with the boss every now and then, and the boss doesn't know anything.
But if Hunter says, I don't think you should be doing that, they say, you're not the president.
And then they go do it.
So I've got a feeling the government's sort of running itself right now, and probably not with much risk, which is the strangest thing about it.
You know, I feel like I should be worried about this, but based on everything that we have observed, I just don't know that Biden was ever that important to anything.
Certainly when he's not there, it doesn't seem to make an obvious difference.
So, we'll see.
There's a study that says eating strawberries can reduce your risk of heart disease and all kinds of good things.
Well, I eat a strawberry every day and I like this study.
One of the ways that you can tell whether a study is reliable, and I think I've taught you this before, so a study you can tell it's reliable if it agrees with what you wanted it to say.
I eat a strawberry every day.
What do I want the science to tell me?
Oh, that it's very healthy.
Let's see.
Oh, I found a study that says it's very healthy.
So do I believe that this study is good science?
No, of course not.
It's probably put together by the Strawberry Association or something.
Usually these are.
So no, you should not believe that strawberries are good for you because there's a study that says they're good for you.
But I like strawberries, so I'm going to believe it.
There's another study that says ivermectin might have a surprising potential against cancer.
The American thinker has a big article on that.
And so apparently there are several different types of cancer that, anecdotally, ivermectin looks like it might have some potential for, but I don't think we're at the gold standard For studying that.
So I don't think that's a fact.
But just in case, every morning I put a little ivermectin on my strawberries, and I say, maybe, maybe.
No, I don't really eat ivermectin on strawberries, but if it were delicious, I might give it a try.
It can't be any worse than anything else I eat.
All right, there's a study that says, by the way, I have a theme for today.
The theme is that all data is wrong.
Just in general.
Now, that's a theme that is completely unbelievable to normal people.
I know what you're thinking.
Well, it's not all wrong.
I mean, some of it's right.
No, it isn't.
No, it isn't.
It's all wrong.
All data is wrong, and it always has been.
Do you know who would agree with me?
Everybody who's ever had to collect data for a living.
They will all agree with me.
Now, there aren't that many people in that category, but if you can find anybody whose job it has been to collect data for anything, for science, for politics, for business, for anything, and say, is data real?
Their first answer might be, of course it is, because they know what the right answer is.
But they say, okay, but when you are collecting data, you know, when you can really see whether the data was real because you were in charge of collecting it, Was that data real?
Okay, well, you got me.
That data wasn't real.
But I think the other data is real, the stuff I don't know about.
That is called Gilman amnesia, people.
That's where you assume that, you know, the other stuff you haven't looked into is probably fine.
No, it's not.
No data is real.
No data is real.
All science is motivated, all business is motivated, and all politics is motivated.
Meaning, That if the data doesn't agree with the person who's promoting it, they're not going to promote it.
So you only see things that match the narrative of the person giving it to you, basically.
That's the way we work.
So with that in mind, Unusual Wales was reporting today on X that 2023 was the worst year for corporate bankruptcies since the great financial crisis, and 2024 is looking even worse.
All right, so there's some data.
Bankruptcies are looking like they'll be worse than ever.
So that means that the economy is worse, right?
Or that whatever's driving bankruptcies are worse?
Maybe.
But it could also be that we've had a huge burst in entrepreneurial activity.
What would a huge burst in startups and new businesses guarantee that you had?
A lot more bankruptcies.
If you take more chances, you get more bankruptcies.
So, is this telling us that everything was normal and the only thing that's changed is the bankruptcies, which would be pretty bad?
Or is it misleading because we don't know if it's matched with an entrepreneurial boost Which we have heard about, right?
You've heard there's a lot more startups and entrepreneurial things.
So maybe it's actually a sign of good economic health.
Because if the startups were, let's say, ten times higher, and the bankruptcies were twice as high, that would be good news.
Sort of.
I mean, it's not good news for the bankrupt.
But it'd be sort of good news for the economy, because they'd say, wow, you know, if all those things work, but, you know, some of these are worse than usual, that would make sense.
Now, I'm not saying that that's the specific problem with these bankruptcy numbers.
I'm just telling you, there's no data that's real.
Somebody collected it.
It doesn't mean it's real.
It doesn't mean it's right.
It doesn't mean that the second person who studied it would get the same number.
Data is not real.
Here's another one.
On the internet today, there's this graph showing that the counties that Biden won, back in 2018 anyway, their GDP would have been 71% of the total GDP.
So in other words, the Biden-Democrat dominated areas of the country have 71% of all the money, the GDP.
That's not the wealth, but that's their economic activity, let's say.
Now, so what does that mean?
Does that mean the Democrats have all the money, and that Republicans are not the big money fat cats anymore, but the Democrats are the big money fat cats?
Maybe.
It might mean that.
It could be, but far more likely is that the data was collected in a dumbass way.
The most likely explanation is that the data is useless.
For example, if Apple Computer happened to have their headquarters in one county, you'd get, like, all the Apple Computer GDP, wouldn't you?
It would just be in that one county.
Now, it's also very Democrat, so you can argue that it is telling you something useful.
But I don't really think this, this seems like too much of a confused piece of data.
Cause you got, you know, the, the places where Biden won, if you do, if you only won by a little bit, that would be called a win.
So that would be like completely owning that County, but where they won by a lot would also be counted as one win.
I don't like anything about the data.
So I don't know anything specifically wrong with it, but everything on the surface looks like, eh, I'm not sure you can really tell.
I'll tell you what would be useful if you just did the wealth of all voting Democrats versus the wealth of all voting Republicans.
How much wealth do they have, not just income?
That would tell you something.
That would actually be useful.
But by county?
No, I don't think so.
All right, Venezuela had something they call an election, and boy is this going to be awkward for the United States.
Let's see if you can figure out why this would be so awkward for the United States.
Here's what happened.
The so-called leader, President Nicolas Maduro, I remember when people were saying, oh, Venezuela's going to have an election, and I said, what?
How can Venezuela have an election?
They have a dictator.
And people said, no, no, Scott, you're not up to date on this.
They're going to have an election.
And I said, no, they're not.
They have a dictator.
And then the smart people said, yeah, the really popular challenger, she's ahead in the polls, looks like she's going to win.
And I said, no, she isn't.
That's a dictatorship.
So here's what happened.
It looked like that challenger was way ahead in the polls.
It looked like there was nothing that could possibly stop her, except some poll watchers were bullied away from watching.
And allegedly some gang members trucked in a whole bunch of ballots, or they stole a bunch of ballot boxes.
And there were reports of massive, massive Election rigging, which unexpectedly took Maduro, who I thought was a dictator, took him to a win.
Isn't that interesting?
So if you were to look at the charts, it would look like Maduro was way behind, way behind, way behind, and then late at night, zoom!
He zoomed into the lead, just barely, just enough.
Lucky, lucky guy.
Lucky that all the votes that came in later were pro-Maduro.
Now, I know what you're going to say.
People, people, stop it.
Stop it.
I'm not an idiot.
I know what's going on here.
Don't you?
Yeah.
I think we all see what's going on here.
What's going on is that the challenger, As a big old liar, and she's claiming that this election was rigged, but actually she's probably an insurrectionist.
If there's a protest, which I would call an insurrection, to try to stop this totally fair and honest election, now why am I saying it's totally fair and honest?
Duh!
There's no court in Venezuela that has found it is not honest.
Can we agree on that?
No court in Venezuela has ruled that the election was rigged.
So what's wrong with you?
What's wrong with all of you insurrectionist doubters?
I'm telling you, the courts have not ruled anything about that.
So obviously it's fine.
Obviously the election is good.
And beyond that, I can assure you that Venezuela assured us and its own citizens, you can't rig an election when everybody's watching.
You can't do that!
People, what are you thinking?
Do you think that they could rig an election that was obviously going to go one way late into the night, and then suddenly there's this weird increase in votes?
Do you think they're going to get away with that?
Everybody saw it!
Well, I mean, if the courts don't rule that there was a problem, and there are no Challenges to it that the system recognizes.
I would imagine that anybody who tried to get this election stopped from certified, you know, if they tried to block it from certification in Venezuela, I guess they would be insurrectionists, wouldn't they?
I guess that's what we call them.
Now, you all see how awkward this is, right?
Because Venezuela just ran the blueprint of everything that Republicans have suspected about the U.S.
election.
Exactly.
It's an exact duplicate of what Republicans say happened in 2020.
Now, do I know it's a duplicate?
Meaning, do I know that the 2020 election was rigged?
I don't.
Neither do the Venezuelans.
Right?
The Venezuelans have a strong suspicion, but a suspicion is not proof.
Where's the evidence?
Where's the video?
Who's got the video of these gangs allegedly stealing these ballot boxes?
I haven't seen it.
Have you seen any video?
Has the media in Venezuela reported their investigative story?
Because I don't know much about Venezuela and much about the dictatorship, but I'm assuming that they have a free and fair... What?
Are you telling me the media in Venezuela wouldn't be completely independent and objective?
Well, this is the first time I'm hearing this.
Well, now you're just blowing my whole world view.
I just assumed that the media would be uncovering any kind of problems there.
Are you telling me that the media is controlled by the dictator?
Huh.
Who could have seen that coming?
So, while certainly there are differences between Venezuela and the United States, your brain is going to have a hard time making a difference.
Because this is going to look just like what people in the United States imagined, correctly or incorrectly, happened in 2020.
It's also what they're going to be looking for to happen again.
Because there's widespread expectations that the American election will go exactly like this.
Meaning that the stealing will be so obvious, and they'll get away with it again.
Why?
Because our courts will not find anything wrong with the election.
Doesn't it seem like we're living in a simulation, and the simulation is just messing with us at this point?
I mean, what are the odds that Trump would get nicked by a bullet in the ear.
What are the odds that the Democrat candidate would be literally like a walking ghost that they tried to prop up but they couldn't get away with it?
What are the odds that any of this would be happening?
What are the odds that Kamala Harris, widely understood to be the worst candidate of all candidates in the world, that she's the leading candidate?
And that some of the polls are saying, yeah, she looks close.
Looks like she's gonna be neck and neck.
And other people have noticed that Kamala Harris went from the least popular, least qualified person as vice president, to suddenly, my God, is she good.
Look at all of her accomplishments.
Have you seen the interviews on the street?
There's a young man who Stops young people who look like they're old enough to vote and says stuff like, do you know who's running for president?
And they don't know.
And they've never heard of Kamala Harris.
And they don't know who the vice president of the United States is.
This is our youth.
They don't even know.
So that's our system.
Anyway.
It's going to be fun to watch how that story is covered.
Let me give you an idea how it might be handled.
So I look for, you know, the usual suspects.
When you know that there's a story that's negative for Democrats, there's going to be a handful of people who go first to try to redefine the story.
Well, here's one.
Michael McFaul.
You can google him yourself if you want to find out how much of a Democrat he is, but let's just say he would be one of the people you'd expect to go first and tell you how to understand this.
So here's what he says.
The situation in Venezuela right now reminds me a lot of the elections in Serbia in 2000 and Ukraine in 2004.
Blah blah blah.
in 2004. Blah blah blah. So Michael McFaul, Democrat, would like you to be thinking about these lesser developed, less secure countries.
Yeah, if you're thinking of Venezuela, the thing to compare it to would be Serbia 2000 and Ukraine 2004.
Because you don't want to compare it to the United States.
Well, that would be crazy.
Now, let's put our attention in the year 2000 and 2004, Serbia and Ukraine.
Let's talk about Serbia and Ukraine.
But, Michael, it reminds a lot of people of the United States, and shut up!
It's Serbia, it's Ukraine.
Serbia and Ukraine.
Now, we'll see if other people pick up this Serbia-Ukraine thing, so that we can say, thank God we don't have a system like that in the United States.
Thank God!
Well, there's a, according to SpringerLink, that I guess is some kind of newsy website, there is something called zombie election monitors.
Zombie election monitors.
Now that would be different from an election monitor who is sincere and has access to observe, and they say what honestly they say.
That's not a zombie.
That's somebody doing the job.
But it turns out that worldwide, there are more zombies, which are people who simply pretend that they watched, but did not watch.
In other words, there are election monitors who are organized and chosen specifically to make sure you don't know the election was stolen.
So their job is to say, everything looked fine to me.
But did you see the gangs come in and take away those big boxes of ballots?
No, no.
Didn't see that.
Did you see them photocopying the ballots and running them through a second time?
Um, no.
As a matter of fact, I didn't notice anything like that.
So this election is clean, clean and unrigged.
So look out for the zombie fake election monitors.
We probably have some of those.
Anyway, so if you want to know how good the brainwashing machine is on the Democrats, here's a good example.
So apparently Kamala Harris's favorability has increased dramatically in one week.
Her favorability increased dramatically in one week.
Is that because of all the accomplishments she had that week?
Did she have a really good week?
Did she end a war?
Did she cure cancer?
No.
No.
All it took—all it took was the news to collectively say she's the greatest thing and everybody lie, and her popularity zoomed.
So how much did it go up in one week?
Let's see.
According to ABC News, which of course I would not trust whatsoever as a news or polling entity, but it said 43% of Americans say they have a favorable view of Harris.
It's an eight point jump from last week.
She had an eight point jump in popularity in one week.
Now, first of all, I don't believe the poll.
Second of all, if it's true, it's a brainwashing operation.
That would be how powerful the brainwashing is.
That's really powerful.
Now, one of the problems that I have when I try to warn people that they live in a brainwashing environment, it's not politics, it's just brainwashing.
So the best brainwashers win.
People don't really understand how strong it is.
People don't really know that you can change the majority of American minds in an hour if you're doing the right brainwashing.
So, if you don't know how easily minds can be changed, you're not going to worry about brainwashing.
If you know it can change everything and quickly, it's the only thing you'd worry about, because it is the only thing that's a problem.
Everything else flows from that.
So the contemplation about who Kamala Harris will pick as her running mate should she get the nomination we expect she will.
Mark Kelly is coming on at the top of a poorly understood field of people that most people have never heard of.
So he's an older, bald, white guy.
Now, here's my take.
America is clearly ready for a black president, right?
Obama was president for two terms.
We're clearly ready for a female president.
I think Hillary Clinton actually won the popular vote, did she not?
So we're ready for black, we're ready for any minority, really.
We're ready for female, of course.
I think we're ready, almost, For LGBTQ?
Probably not yet.
You know, I still think it'd be tough to win LGBTQ.
But we're close.
And I would say, you know, if Richard Grenell ran for office someday, you know, the odds are pretty good.
You'd have a pretty good shot.
So I think we're ready for most of those things.
You know what we're not ready for?
A bald white guy.
Bald black guy, yes.
Bald black guy, yes.
Because that looks more like a look.
But bald white guy?
I don't know if we're ready for that.
And I'm not joking, by the way.
I don't think it's a coincidence that presidents have had basically reasonably good hair forever.
When, what is it, what percentage of the general adult older population is missing hair?
40, 50, 60%?
And yet all of our presidents have good hair?
I think there's a reason for it.
I think they've got to be tall if they're male.
They have to be tall.
And they have to have good hair.
Or at least interesting hair, like Trump.
So we'll see.
Then there's this weird story about Mark Kelly.
He has, of all things, he has some kind of ownership of a surveillance balloon company that allegedly has some Chinese investment in it, which should raise some eyebrows.
I don't know that that's a problem.
I mean, probably we're more worried about it than we should.
Certainly, I would want to ask a lot of questions before I could be comfortable with that.
So we'll see.
I don't think Mark Kelly's going to be the guy.
If I had to guess, I'm just going to guess against the bald guy.
That's what I think.
Anyway, as you know, Democrats have been claiming that crime is down under Joe Biden.
And what did I say when I heard that crime was down under Joe Biden?
I said, No data is real.
It's all made up.
And if you'd like to know how they made it up, here's how.
Half of the country doesn't even report their crime numbers to the FBI.
Half of the country doesn't even report.
So do you know what the FBI does when they want to give you the national crime numbers?
They report the ones they have, and then they estimate the others.
Now, do you think it's more likely that if crime went up, you might be less likely to report it in your city?
Let's say you're the mayor, and you have the power to report it or not report it, since apparently it's not a law that requires it.
And your crime goes up, are you going to report it?
Or are you going to say, you know, maybe we'll skip this year.
If it goes down next year, maybe we report it.
Of course you don't.
No, these numbers on crime are completely useless.
Because the FBI has to guess on half of them, and they don't have any basis for guessing.
This is the way the real world works, folks.
If you think that people collect data, they find out it's accurate, and then they tell it to you, that's probably never happened ever.
It's just not something that ever happens in the real world.
All data is motivated.
All data is estimates, guessing, assumptions.
It's not real.
So this is an especially good example.
And then what about the stuff about the economy?
Do you believe anything about the economy?
Do you think that any news coming from the administration that's in charge, and then that administration produces some numbers that look good for the economy, do you think those are reasonable and reliable?
No, of course not.
All the economic numbers are completely non-trustable during an election year, probably always, but during an election year, it'd be absurd to believe them.
And of course, they do the trick of where you start the calculation.
By the way, this is how companies that manage your money, let's say they do investments for you, they're kind of a fund, this is how they do the trick too.
So let's say you're an investment fund, And you've never made money for your clients more than they would have made if they just put it in the market on their own.
So, what do you do if the market in general is better than your fund?
You don't do any advertising.
Well, you don't do any advertising that says you're record.
But then, because things go up and down, you have a good month.
And you have this, like, one good month because you have this one good stock that went up.
Well then you do some advertising.
You say, compared to the regular market, we beat the regular market by 5% over the past year.
And it's true.
It's just that they waited for the one month they had a good year compared to the average.
If you looked at five years, not so good.
Which means that one year was luck.
So if you can decide, if you have control over where you start and end the analysis, you can make yourself look good or bad compared to anything.
As long as both of them are in flux all the time, which is the case with economic stuff.
So, don't believe any economic stuff.
Molly Hemingway tells us that Pete Buttigieg has been lying about illegal immigration.
He said that it's gone down, at least the illegal immigration from the Northern Triangle countries and Mexico, It has gone down, but in fact it's up 140% from Trump's time, from 1.8 million to 4.3.
How can they say it goes down when it's going up by a lot?
You can change the definitions of what it means to be illegal.
So they changed the definition.
They said, if we process you through the legal doorway, Where you say you are an asylum seeker, and we say we're not sure, but until we're sure, you have a legal right to stay in the country.
Those are called not illegal.
So it's pretty easy to get the data to be anything you want if you can change the definition of words.
Have you noticed that the Democrats massively changed the definition of words?
So that you don't know what's going on.
What's that equity mean?
Well, don't ask.
Imagine trying to tell Democrats that all data is fake.
All of it.
Who would believe that?
Who would believe that all data is fake?
Nobody, really.
I'm the only person who believes that.
In fact, you don't believe it.
I'm telling you it's true and you don't believe it.
How could you ever convince anybody that all data is made up?
It is, it's all made up.
All the important stuff.
Things that are unimportant, like, you know, maybe the engineer is measuring the tolerance of advice or something, that might be real.
But all the political stuff?
Economics?
No, that's not real.
All right, there's a report that Google was suppressing searches for a Trump assassination.
And I mistakenly tested mine and, you know, Trump came up right away.
And I thought, oh, well, it looks like it's not happening on my end.
But, um, I was, uh, too sleepy when I did that because the real test was about, uh, the word assassination.
And sure enough, you can type Trump assassin and it doesn't autocomplete.
So no, I was wrong.
Mine, mine did not work.
If you, if you type in Trump, It immediately autofills with Trump.
It's just the assassination that's the part it doesn't autofill.
Now, Google's explanation was, they said, and I quote, there was no manual action taken, meaning they didn't do anything to suppress Trump assassination as a search.
Our systems have protections against autocomplete predictions associated with political violence, which were working as intended prior to this horrific event.
We're working on improvements to ensure our systems are more up to date.
Of course, autocomplete is just a tool to help people save time and they can still search for anything they want.
Does any of that sound real?
Do you think it really like they have to research this?
Or do you think they could just go in and say, oh, if you start typing assassination and it's Trump, maybe you should surface this brand new story that everybody's talked about for a month.
It doesn't look like it should be that hard.
But apparently all the other assassinations come up, you know, the historical ones.
If you say assassination, it'll autofill with all the other people who have ever been assassinated except Trump.
I think that what's happening is it's not about the assassination word.
It's just anything that would be a story that would be favorable to Trump.
So I don't believe Google's explanation.
I would consider it a probable lie.
Probably.
Well, apparently the Democrats have decided that they're going to use the word weird to describe, I guess, J.D.
Vance and Trump.
Now, you might say to yourself, weird?
That's like such a weak, overused, weird word.
And Vivek Ramaswamy has a similar idea.
He says this whole they're weird argument from the Democrats is dumb and juvenile.
This is a presidential election, not a high school prom queen contest.
It's also a tad ironic coming from the party that preaches diversity and inclusion.
Win on policy if you can, but cut the crap, please.
Now, I guess I agree with what Vivek says, that it's juvenile and, you know, you should argue on policies.
However, I'm going to tell you what you didn't expect.
This is probably professional work.
Remember when I spotted dark in the Clinton-Trump election?
As soon as they all said, Trump's speech is dark, I said, whoa, that's professional.
That's not something that regular politicians come up with.
That word makes you fear without any details.
Oh, it's dark?
Ooh, everything bad is dark.
And then you put all the bad fear that you have for the dark into Trump.
Very professional manipulation of minds.
Weird is probably that good.
And here's why.
If you're saying to yourself, but Scott, I understand the dark thing, because even when I hear it, like, I can feel it.
So I get what you said about that.
But weird is just an overused Kind of a non-useful word, doesn't say anything.
Here's what you might not know.
Young women use that word a lot.
If you're talking to a young woman about a topic that she's not interested in, and you say, oh, this or that happened, what is she going to say while she's looking at her phone?
Looking at a phone, now that's weird.
Then you tell a story about a person who did a thing that isn't usually done.
What does the young woman with the phone say about that person?
That's weird.
Weird is the universal word that young women use for everything that doesn't fit their model.
And it's a good catch-all for their base.
It wouldn't work on the Democrat side.
I'm sorry, it wouldn't work on the Republican side.
On the Republican side, what would work better would be something about disgust.
Somebody is disgusting.
Somebody is sloppy.
The kind of words that Trump would use.
Disgusting and sloppy.
Because Republicans are more geared toward being disgusted.
If I said, describe the opening of the Olympics, and I said it to Republicans, would they say weird?
They might, because it's a common word.
But far more likely, I would think they would say, I'm disgusted by it.
I'm just disgusted.
So if you're going to try to influence Republicans, you go for disgust.
And I think there's science that backs that, by the way.
And if you go to influence young female Democrats, weird is a good way to go.
So it's actually very strong.
And I've started using the word weird to describe whenever Democrats say that Trump is going to steal your democracy.
And do you know why I use the word weird?
Because it works on Democrats.
I want them to feel weird when they say he's going to steal your democracy.
See, if you say instead, but wait, let us make a list.
Here's the list of things Trump wants.
Here are the list of things Kamala Harris wants.
All right, you can see from our two lists and my logic that one of these sides is not trying to steal democracy, but maybe you could argue that the Democrats are.
Nobody cares about your list.
Nobody cares about your logic or your policies.
But if you say, wait, did you just say that Trump is going to steal your democracy?
That's weird.
You're weird.
That actually can change their minds.
Because weird is the last thing you want to hear if you're a young woman.
Men don't care so much.
Men don't mind being weird.
They're more likely to go rogue and buy a rifle and try to shoot the president.
I mean, men are completely different.
But women do not want to be weird.
And if they are being weird, they want to be weird in a popular way.
So if you say to me, but Scott, they dyed their hair blue.
No, that's weird in a popular way.
That's weird in a popular way.
It says more about popular than weird.
So they would say I'm just, you know, expressing my feelings or whatever.
There's nothing weird about that.
And there isn't.
But it's just the word is powerful on one side, but not the other.
All right.
So apparently Biden is looking for three reforms on the Supreme Court.
I'm not sure that that's a reform, but they want no immunity for Crimes that a former president commits in office.
And I wonder, do you think that Biden is still alive?
Do you believe that Biden, while he is someone accused of lots of crimes in office, do you think that he wants to remove his own protection?
I don't.
To me, this is proof he's not the president.
Because I can't see anybody who would say, you know, it'd be a good idea To work really, really hard to make me personally far more likely to go to jail when I'm 85.
It's just not something you do.
You just say, maybe the next administration can work on this, but I'd like to have my immunity once I retire.
So, I think it's evidence that Biden is not in charge.
I can't imagine he would be in favor of that, because he would be in as much the target as any other president.
And then he wants term limits for Supreme Court justices.
I'm open-minded on that one.
I'd like to hear the arguments on that.
And binding code of conduct for the Supreme Court.
Again, it's all in the details.
You know, could there be a code of conduct for the Supreme Court?
I feel like the Supreme Court should come up with that on their own.
I don't feel like that should be imposed upon them.
Do you?
You know, wouldn't you be more comfortable if the people who are supposed to be the standard bearers for our constitutional system They're the ones who should say, you know what, we need a code of conduct.
So we're going to publish one and try to stick to it.
And I feel like on some level they probably do have that, don't they?
Whether it's written down or unwritten, but certainly they have understood conduct that they consider too far and, you know, what's allowable.
So that seems like maybe that's unnecessary.
Anyway, Elon Musk is reminding us of non-citizens coming into the countries.
He's calling them illegals.
I have also a little issue with using that word.
Now, obviously, they've done something illegal, but, you know, we don't call You know, if somebody got caught shoplifting once and they're a citizen, we don't really call them illegals, even if they did something illegal once.
Uh, so I don't love that word, but it's not, it's, I'm not going to make it a mission to end it.
Um, so anyway, a few things you should probably know, according to Elon Musk, illegals in America can get Can get bank loans, mortgages, insurances, driver's license, free health care in California and New York, and in-state college tuition for not even so.
And then Elon says, what's the point of being a citizen if an illegal gets all the benefits but doesn't pay taxes or do jury duty?
Well, that's not true.
If they have a job, they're going to pay taxes, aren't they?
Do illegal employees not pay taxes?
I thought they did.
So I don't know if that's accurate.
But he was reminded that sometimes they can vote.
So if you get your driver's license, depending where it is, you might get an option to get a ballot.
Doesn't mean it's legal to vote, but you'd be given the option.
All right, here's an interesting story.
As you know, people are calling The mega Trump-loving people, a cult.
Now what's interesting about this is that it doesn't fit the definition of cult.
So what did they do?
Did the Democrats say, oh, well, now that you point out the definition of a cult, I can see that it doesn't fit.
Specifically, what doesn't fit is a cult really, really needs to keep the cult away from other information so that their world is just whatever the cult leader tells them.
But that's not the case with Republicans.
Republicans see all the mainstream reporting, if only to know how to counter it.
But they see it all.
They're very aware of what both sides of the argument are.
That is not true on the other side.
The Democrats are socially and or functionally cut off from really half of the argument.
And always will be, because they don't even want to look at Fox News for two seconds.
I'm not going to go look at Breitbart.
Are you crazy?
They would say.
But yet, Republicans are going to hear every story that's important that came out of the Washington Post or the New York Times.
They don't trust those entities, but they certainly know what they're saying.
It just doesn't work the other way.
So I was saying that Joe Navarro, who's an ex-FBI guy, and he's written some best-selling books on body language, which I've recommended.
So he's real good on body language.
If you want to look into his books, Joe Navarro, and I've recommended them in the past.
But he's talking now, I guess he did a little video on this, That he's making the case for cults being more about a charismatic leader.
So that would allow you to call the MAGA people a cult, because they really, really like Trump.
Do you see what's happening here?
This is part of the brainwashing industrial complex.
No, I'm not saying that Joe Navarro is connected to anybody who's asking him to do this.
Everybody just knows what to do if they're on one side.
If you happen to be an expert on cults, you can be expected, and you're also, let's say, a Democrat, you can be expected that people will want to hear you say that Trump is a cult, and that the Democrats are not.
Now, the Democrats don't have a charismatic leader at the moment.
They did under Obama, but they don't at the moment.
But they do have a silo in what They have access to.
And so because they have a silo, the news can simply act like a leader, you know, the collective fake news, and just tell people what to believe.
And then they believe it.
And they get their fake data that they think is real, and they get their fake narratives that they think are complete, and they get their hoax videos that they don't know are edited, and they live in this little artificial, completely fake world, in which they think that they're right, and that the other side are narcissists, and criminals, and racists, and maybe sexists too.
And the only part they're true about is, yeah, they are sexists.
That part's true, but not in a way that necessarily should be a crime against humanity.
They just like the fact that men and women are different, and that they celebrate that instead of run from it.
So that's a little sexist, according to the Democrats, but not necessarily a crime, depending on your point of view.
So, charismatic leader is a cult?
I don't think so.
Let's see, let's check on my hypothesis about what's happening.
So the Atlantic, which is allegedly a publication but really is just a propaganda entity, Made the claim that, according to Breitbart, who's busting him on this, that they're claiming that Trump will end elections.
So they're doing this fake thing where, I guess, the Atlantic's Brian Klass wrote, well, it doesn't matter what he wrote, but the idea is that they took Trump out of context, saying that when he talked to the Christian group, that the election was a mess.
And that if he gets elected, he'll fix it.
So you only have to vote for him once and you'll never have to vote again if you're a low propensity voter.
You just have to get this one thing done.
And then once he fixes elections so that they're fair and transparent, then maybe you don't need to vote again because that would be fixed and everything will be fine after that.
Now they turned that into he's going to end democracy and you'll never get to vote again.
Now, obviously he didn't say that.
How do you know he didn't say that?
The same way you can identify most of the hoaxes.
Most of the hoaxes have the following quality.
Would anybody say that?
No.
If you can say, would anybody say that?
It's a hoax.
Now, I want to take a minute to explain what I call brainwashing versus what would just be wrong, you know, bad information, what would be lying, Which is not brainwashing.
And what would be a conspiracy theory?
Which is not brainwashing.
Brainwashing is when you know what you're doing, you're the brainwasher, you know you're telling something that isn't true, but it's so untrue that the people looking at it don't even need to do the research to know it's not true.
Let me give you an example.
Did you need to do research To know that the President of the United States did not, in fact, ever call neo-Nazis fine people with a premeditated talk that he thought about before he gave it.
No, you don't have to research that.
That's something that couldn't, didn't happen in any world.
Do you have to research whether or not the President of the United States once speculated about the benefit of injecting or drinking bleach?
No, you don't have to research that.
Now, on the surface, that's obviously something that didn't happen.
Do you have to research that a bunch of unarmed people tried to stage an insurrection with some paperwork changes about electoral college, and apparently no organized plan whatsoever for taking over, and when the president had offered more security and it was turned down ahead of the event?
Do you have to do a lot of research to find out that wasn't an insurrection and it was just a protest?
No, you don't.
It's right there.
If you just watch the news, you can see it with your own eyes.
So brainwashing is telling you that something you can see clearly and obviously is not the case.
Now, that's different from just lying.
When they talk about the economy, that's just lying.
And it has the effect of, you know, convincing people of something that's not true.
But you wouldn't know, necessarily, that the economic numbers were a lie.
You don't need brainwashing for that.
A simple lie that somebody doesn't check would be sufficient.
That's not really brainwashing, that's just a lie that you got away with.
A conspiracy theory, let's say you see a lot of those on the right, those are not brainwashing.
Those are people who got brainwashed.
So those people who believe what they researched on their own usually, and maybe they want you to believe it too.
But they're not trying to brainwash you.
Their intention is, they think they know the truth, even if they don't, and they would like you to know the truth too.
Completely different than brainwashing.
How about just people who don't have all the facts, but they're sure about their opinion.
And so they're trying to convince you of their opinion, but maybe they just didn't have all the facts.
That's not brainwashing.
That's just somebody who didn't have the facts who's making an argument.
You know, basically what everybody is every day.
So, brainwashing, and the reason I used only three examples in my brainwashing test, which is doing really well in terms of popularity on X, is the idea is you just take the three.
The fine people hoax, the drinking bleach hoax, and the January 6th insurrection hoax.
They all have the quality that you don't really need to research them to know they're not true.
You have to be brainwashed to think those things are true.
And the Democrats are.
So that's brainwashing.
And the summer hoax seems to be about Project 2025.
Yeah, that's, as J. Richard said on X, it's basically, it's the Russia hoax for the year.
You know, it's just without the Russia part.
And how do they get away with saying something that's so easily demonstrated to not be true?
Now, could you tell that the 2025 thing is fake without doing research?
Is it obviously fake on the surface?
It is not.
It is not obviously fake on the surface.
It's just a claim of something.
And you'd have to do the research to know if it was true or not.
It's not like, did the president call neo-Nazis fine people?
I don't have to research that.
Of course he didn't.
Of course he didn't.
But if somebody says there's a document I haven't read, and it has a bunch of policy things written by people who used to work for Trump, do I know for sure that's not Trump's plan?
I don't really know.
I mean, I'd have to look into it.
It turns out it's not.
If you look into it for one second, if you spend even a minute Googling it, you will find out it's not his plan.
And in fact, the fact checkers even agree it's not his plan.
So even their own fact checkers say it's not true.
But why will they believe it and keep saying it, the Democrats?
It's because they have demonized the news on the other side to such a degree The Democrats won't even sample it.
Imagine a Democrat flipping through the channels and they hit Fox News.
They're going to go, ugh!
And hit that button as soon as possible to flip through it.
Because they're just disgusted.
They've been trained to avoid contact.
Which doesn't happen the other way, by the way.
I don't see a lot of Republicans Telling other Republicans to avoid contact.
Well, some people tell me that, but I don't listen to them.
Anyway, so that's the New Summer Oaks, and it only works because one side has demonized the other's source of information so that they won't look at it, and they'll never see a contrary Elon had a response to Gavin Newsom, something about Professor Sagan, he's nuts.
Well, I missed that one.
So I guess Elon had said something insulting to Newsom.
Anyway, there's a story that China's got a special challenge with AI over there.
Because they have to make the AI not tell people the truth.
So they're furiously trying to program their AI so that it's not intelligent.
Now, that doesn't even sound real, does it?
Now, not intelligent specifically in anything that's political or maybe philosophical.
So they want that part to just program their population.
They don't want them finding out anything that's not government approved.
So how in the world could AI ever work in China as well as it will work in the United States?
Now you know the United States is doing the same thing, right?
They're programming it so it doesn't agree with the Republicans ever.
But I feel like there will at least be competing AIs.
You know, Grok won't be that way.
There's an unfiltered one that's not that way.
So at least in the United States, you'll have access to one that hasn't been programmed to brainwash you.
Whether you'll use it or not, I don't know, but you'll have access to it.
That'll be different.
All right.
Hold on.
So apparently the G20, that's the 20 industrialized countries that get together now and then, I think the Daily Wire is reporting this, they've agreed to work together to make the super-rich pay their taxes.
That's the way the article is written, to make the super-rich pay their taxes.
Okay, that's just propaganda.
But sure, they don't have a broad agreement, but the finance ministers from those nations They agreed toward working to tax the super rich.
And so they're trying to coordinate as a world government to tax the super rich.
Now, when I say tax the super rich, I don't mean income, but rather they will tax their wealth.
So it'd be something like pay 2% of your total wealth every year.
Now, do you know how many problems that would cause?
In order to pay taxes, You need cash.
And even though rich people could borrow it if they didn't have it immediately, there's going to be a lot of situations where their money is in assets in a business.
What are they going to do?
Sell part of their business to pay their taxes every year?
How much cash does a rich person keep on hand?
So let's say the rich people have to get rid of their investments to pay.
So they have to sell some stocks.
Is that good?
Don't the people who own stocks sort of like the fact that the rich people are buying them too?
Because that makes the stock go up in value?
So, here's what's wrong with this philosophy, I think.
The rich people's money is not sitting there doing nothing.
The rich people are not using every bit of their money to buy luxury items.
When they're not using their money, it doesn't sit there in a bag in the back room of their mansion.
It's employed.
So it's either sitting in a bank so that the bank can lend it out.
In other words, it's part of the reserves to allow them to make loans.
Or it's in the stock market where it's supporting the companies that are the subject of that stock.
So you would have to take the money out of productive places and give it to the government.
Who is the best in the country at employing capital?
If you had a billion dollars that just magically became available, and you said, all right, we can give this billion dollars to, let's see, I'll give it to Paul Graham or the All In Pod guys, or I'll give it to Elon Musk.
Okay, that's one option.
The people who are really, really good at employing capital.
Or you could give it to the government.
Which one tells you the country's going to be better off?
So, this whole rich people bad, they must be punished, it's just part of this weird philosophical belief that, you know, success must be punished and everybody's got to have the same stuff in the end.
So, and why are the G20 even talking about American taxes?
I've got a message to the G19.
The G19 would be all the questions, all the countries who are not America.
Fuck you guys!
Will you leave us the fuck alone?
Get out of our internal politics.
Stay away from our tax system.
You guys are losers.
Get the fuck away from our tax system.
No, you G20 assholes should not have anything to do with our tax system.
I don't want to hear your idea.
I don't want to hear how much it makes sense.
I don't want to hear how much your public likes it.
I don't want to hear about anything from you assholes.
Nothing.
We'll work it out.
I mean, we might do a good job on it, we might do a bad job, but no!
You don't have any control over our tax-fucking system!
Crazy.
Dr. Jordan Peterson continues to be fascinating, and he says that people grow up, they mature, basically, when they get married.
So he thinks it's better to get married young, because then you'll mature and become A more complete citizen, and part of the maturation process, he points out, is that when you have something that's more important than yourself, you become almost immediately more mature.
In other words, you know that something, this child, is more important than you, and then you start acting like you're not the most important thing in the world, and that's a sign of maturity.
And I would agree with him on the basic outlines of that argument.
But I would like to add my own provocative hypothesis.
Now, this is not based on science, but it has a, let's say, the hypothesis is based on things we know to be true.
And here's the hypothesis, that having children ages you biologically.
I agree with the fact it makes you more mature.
And I'm not saying that the physical aging It's connected to that mental maturity.
Those are separate.
I'm saying that I think having children ages you, and here's why.
I think that biologically we're meant to have children.
That, you know, we've evolved or we're designed, however you want to do it, to the point where having children is the most basic impulse for a man or a woman within a certain age range especially.
And I think that when you have children, let's say you pump out three or four of them, that you feel your work is done.
That as long as you've created the, you know, the extra people, that if you can get them to the point where they're self-sustaining, you know, they've got through their first 18 years and they can get a job on their own, that you feel like you're done.
And I feel like your body says you're done too.
And so, and again, there's no, there's no science to this.
It's just my hypothesis based on observation.
And I think that people who have not had children will exercise more and try to stay fit for having children so that they can look like a better deal for somebody who wants to have children.
So part of it might be that the single people know they have to up their game a little bit to look like they're worthy of having children.
And some of it might be that biologically, once you've had children, Your body just says, you've done your job.
Good job.
And now you may live out the rest of your days and we don't need you.
We're not being unkind.
You certainly contributed with your children.
We love that.
Good for the world.
Good for the population.
But your job is kind of winding down now.
And I wonder if that ages you.
It's just a hypothesis.
Now, I think you would find that people who had families live longer than single people.
But that problem with the data, of course, all data is wrong.
You're going to get a lot of single people who couldn't get married because they had, you know, physical issues.
And people who had physical issues, which would translate to bad health, are less likely to find a mate who wants to have a bunch of kids with them.
So, you know, data is not going to tell you much about this.
It would be all dirty data.
All right, there's a report, I don't know if it's true yet, that Lufthansa and Austrian Airlines are both canceling all their flights to Ben Gurion International Airport in Israel.
Now, some people say, what do they know that we don't know?
Is there a preparation for a war with Lebanon?
I think the United States has already told Americans, you know what would be a good idea?
If you got into Lebanon, hey, I've got a suggestion for you.
No real reason, but you might want to consider booking a ticket out of Lebanon.
And if I could give you some advice, maybe you want to get out of Lebanon really quickly, because Lebanon might not be a good place to be in a few days.
Well, I've seen the experts talking about how if Israel were to attack Hezbollah, And Hezbollah has sent some deadly rockets, especially recently.
They never stop.
They're always sending rockets, but they don't always get through, or they don't always kill anybody.
But recently they did.
It was pretty bad.
Twelve people, I think, died, the most recent numbers.
And some people say that Israel couldn't take that on, because if they attack Hezbollah, it's way bigger than Gaza.
But then the Palestinians might revolt, and the Syrians might revolt, and Iran would get more involved, and suddenly it would be this giant regional war that Israel is not maybe equipped to handle.
To which I say, how can they not have a war?
War is guaranteed.
War is just guaranteed.
I don't know if it's today or tomorrow, But what country lets another country build up unlimited rockets which they're actively using to lob into their population centers?
If there's one thing I can guarantee you, the people lobbing rockets into Israel's population centers are going to get killed.
They're going to be killed.
There's no way around that.
So Israel's waiting for their best opportunity, they probably have to mop up some things, Yeah, there's no way that Hezbollah is going to get away with this.
Hezbollah is going down.
And it might be, if you want to get political about it, a lot of people who know more than I do about Israel say that Netanyahu is popular enough while they're at war, but the moment Gaza winds down.
There's no way he can remain in office.
He might have legal problems if he leaves office and blah, blah, blah.
So there's a tremendous incentive, some observers would say, for Netanyahu to want to widen the war because it could keep him in power.
Now that's the cynical view.
Um, I would say personally, I don't have a view of Netanyahu that says he would plunge his, his nation into war to protect his job.
I don't know.
I mean, I feel like somebody like him is so bought into, you know, the Israel, uh, the entire Israel story that he's not going to destroy the country to protect his career.
I'd love to think that's, Just impossible for somebody in that position who's gone through what he's gone through, that's lived there, that's experienced, you know, experienced all of this.
I think it's impossible for somebody like that to sell out the country.
I just think it's impossible.
There's just, your brain wouldn't allow you to do it.
But I can't read minds, so I don't want to be making the mistake I always tell people not to make.
I can't read his mind.
It sure would surprise me if he would put his personal, you know, career at this point, especially, if he would put that ahead of the survival of his nation.
I mean, I don't see it.
Maybe.
Anything's possible, I suppose.
But I don't see it.
So, I think that Israel taking out Hezbollah is guaranteed.
It's just a matter of when they choose to do it.
And whether the United States is directly or indirectly helping, We'll be helping, even if all it is is financially replacing their weapons or something, or giving them some satellite support or whatever they need.
But I don't think we'll send humans in.
And I'm also wondering at what point we see the drone swarms.
Because it seems to me that Israel should have access to drone swarms of their own by now.
And can't they use those to just put a ceiling over the border on Lebanon so they can just see every single, um, what would it be, a missile launcher?
You know, it seems like you could get enough just permanent drones over that area that as soon as a missile launcher, you know, unclogs or however they take it out of hiding, that you just drop a grenade on it as soon as it happens, like within seconds.
But you would need just a lot of drones.
Yeah, we're talking about, I don't know, 10,000 in the air at the same time.
But they could do it.
And if they were to provoke a wider war, presumably the missiles would all come out at about the same time.
And then you take them out.
Not that it's easy.
I'm just saying there isn't any way that Israel is going to put up with Hezbollah in the long run.
There's just no way.
And I think that Israel also has to make it clear that being a proxy for Iran is always a death sentence.
Because otherwise Iran will just keep making proxies.
You got to make them at least think about whether you want to be an Iranian proxy if they all die.
I think I'll be an Iranian proxy.
Well, that gives you a life expectancy of 10 minutes.
Drone is coming right now.
So that would be Maybe it would tamp down on some of those proxy activities?
I don't know.
We shall see.
All right, that's all I got for you today.
Thanks for joining.
We'll see if our Monday goes well.
I'm expecting big things today.
Here's another idiot.
Scott, not knowing about people working under the table, is telling of his rich... What do you think it is that I don't know?
Did you read my mind?
You read my mind to know what I don't know?
That's pretty good.
That's pretty crazy.
All right, I'm going to say hi.
I'm just going to talk to the locals people privately, but those of you on Rumble on X and YouTube, thanks for joining.
