Episode 2453 CWSA 04⧸23⧸24
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
142.0371
Summary
In this episode, I talk about evolution and whether or not it's true, and why I don't think it's a theory. I also make a correction about a term I used wrong online and explain why evolution isn't a theory at all.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
He was Scott Adams, and I'm pretty sure there's never been a finer time in your entire life.
00:00:05.420
Sure, the birth of your children, that was cool too, maybe your marriage, but this is even better
00:00:09.800
than that. And if you'd like to take it up to a level that your brain can't even conceive of,
00:00:14.660
well, all you need is a cup of mugger glass, a tanker gel, a sty, and a kentine jug or flask,
00:00:19.180
a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the
00:00:25.120
unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine the other day. The thing makes everything better. It's
00:00:28.440
called the simultaneous sipping happens now. Go. Oh, that's good sipping. That's good sipping.
00:00:40.580
Well, I would like to start with a correction and announcement. A correction. Because I've
00:00:50.480
been a bad person and I used a wrong term online. And now the rest of my day will be explaining
00:00:57.760
why I used that wrong term. The wrong term was natural selection, when I meant to say
00:01:05.200
survival of the fittest. So let me explain. So there's been a conversation about whether
00:01:12.100
evolution is true, because Tucker said he doesn't believe in it. And some people who do believe
00:01:18.900
in it have been interacting with others and tried to figure out what's going on.
00:01:23.460
Brett Weinstein being one of them. And one of the things I said, I'm going to correct a little
00:01:30.260
bit, which is I said that natural selection was debunked by evolutionists. Now that didn't
00:01:38.180
happen. So I think I was, I just confused two terms when I wrote it. What I meant was survival
00:01:47.800
of the fittest. So when I was in school, I was taught that survival of the fittest explained
00:01:54.960
why animals and creatures changed. Because they were always competing with something and
00:02:00.080
only the, only the ones who could compete the best, who won. Well, later, my understanding
00:02:07.320
is that that was replaced with a more nuanced, um, idea, which is that, um, it's not survival
00:02:16.160
of the fittest. It's just survival of the things that survived. Now that's my own take on it.
00:02:22.860
Does that make sense? So things survived, not just because they're the best at it, but sometimes
00:02:28.240
they didn't have any competition. Like if you were a bunch of birds in the Galapagos islands,
00:02:33.320
well, nothing was going to kill you. So you could grow a weird looking beak as, as long
00:02:39.700
as you could eat and you could change colors as long as nobody cared. So I think it went
00:02:45.860
from competition, survival of the fittest to just survival of the things that survived so
00:02:53.980
that the natural selection still allows that things would change over time. My, my, uh, my
00:03:00.740
complaint with evolution is based on the fact that I'm sure we're a simulation and if we're
00:03:07.640
a simulation, the history is all made up. All right. So that's my, uh, so I don't disagree
00:03:13.420
with it on purely scientific terms, but rather I think that the reality itself is different
00:03:19.680
than, uh, the assumptions about natural selection. Anyway, so that's my correction. Natural selection
00:03:26.400
is part of, uh, evolution, but survival of the fittest got tweaked a few decades ago. Anyway,
00:03:35.440
we were just as sure about survival of the fittest before that changed, but here's what I think.
00:03:42.420
Let me just give you the big picture on evolution. If evolution is pretty much exactly what the biologists
00:03:51.400
say it is, and let's say evolution is a, uh, it's a mature field. And by the way, um, I want to make
00:03:59.180
sure that all of you know that in scientific terms, when they say theory, they mean it's proven beyond
00:04:06.660
any reasonable doubt. Did all of you know that? That the word theory in common conversation means
00:04:13.440
it's not proven, but if you're a scientist, theory means it's definitely proven. How many of you knew
00:04:19.780
that? That the word actually means closer to the opposite in common conversation than it does when
00:04:25.680
you're talking about science? Most of you know that? Because one of the best arguments, or not best,
00:04:32.440
one of the common arguments I hear is that evolution is called a theory. It's the theory of evolution.
00:04:38.860
The word theory means fact in a scientific context. So it's not, it's called a hypothesis if you're not
00:04:48.960
sure. It's called a theory when you're sure. Now that doesn't mean that it can't change. It just means
00:04:57.380
that scientists don't really have any doubts anymore. They've, they've tested it and retested it and
00:05:02.220
looked at every window, et cetera. So if we are not a simulation, they've certainly probably got a
00:05:11.040
good grasp on things. That's what people would say. Now, what would it take for you to believe that
00:05:17.240
evolution is true? Well, if it is true, and if evolution is just the way the biologists say,
00:05:25.880
you know, the dominant group of biologists, then it would really stand alone. Because I'm pretty sure
00:05:32.600
climate science is bullshit. I'm pretty sure nutrition science has been bullshit for most of
00:05:38.960
my life. I think that the, I think the physicists have a lot to explain about string theory.
00:05:48.600
String theory sounds a little bit like it might be bullshit. How about the science of psychology?
00:05:55.880
You think psychology is nailing it? No, it looks like mostly bullshit to me. How about medical
00:06:04.480
science? How's the doctoring been in the last several years? Are the medical experts nailing it?
00:06:13.160
No, no, they're, they're not really. How about data science? I wouldn't call that a science per se,
00:06:20.920
but are the data scientists nailing it? So when you see data, it's pretty accurate, isn't it?
00:06:25.880
No. So if evolution is what the biologists say it is, and I'm not giving an argument against it. I'm
00:06:33.940
just saying that unless we're, if we're not a simulation, then it's a pretty good take. Doesn't
00:06:40.980
mean it's true, but it certainly is backed up with by a lot of science. And if it, if evolution is just
00:06:47.540
what they say, it would be the only science that's working, all the rest appear to be primarily
00:06:53.940
bullshit. Now, let me be more, more precise. I don't think science is mostly bullshit. I'm using
00:07:03.780
a little bit of hyperbole. I think that the things that rise to our level of caring and become, you know,
00:07:10.800
let's say they become big social issues on top of being scientific. As soon as they interfere with
00:07:18.360
our real world, they turn to bullshit. That's a pretty good rule. If there's somebody who's studying
00:07:25.260
salamanders somewhere and they've come up with a theory about salamanders, it's probably pretty
00:07:32.300
good. I mean, I'd bet for it, not against it. But if they come up with a theory that says your job is
00:07:40.700
going to be affected in one way or another, probably not. It's probably bullshit. And somebody's trying
00:07:46.040
to steal your money using science as their club. So if it matters in the big world, it's probably
00:07:51.980
bullshit. If it's something that nobody heard of and a scientist is doing it in private, might be true.
00:07:57.280
Yeah. It's only when it becomes something like climate and what you eat and string theory and
00:08:03.280
psychology where you have to go to a therapist and, you know, whether you get a shot or not,
00:08:09.080
it matters. As soon as it matters in the real world, it's bullshit. I wish it weren't the case,
00:08:16.360
but it's very clear of the pattern. Well, speaking of all those things, there's a new study.
00:08:22.780
And do I believe new studies in science? Yes. When they agree with what I want to hear.
00:08:30.160
So here's a new study. Being sedentary and sitting more than six hours a day is bad for your heart.
00:08:37.760
You know, so you'll have greater fatalities if you're sitting around all day. There is one exception.
00:08:43.920
The exception they found was if you drink a lot of coffee. It completely eliminates the health,
00:08:50.180
the health risks of sitting around. Now, do you believe this one?
00:09:05.420
I don't believe this. I don't believe this, but I want to. Since I want to believe it, I'm going to
00:09:11.660
say, yeah, yeah, yeah. Because according to this, I've saved a lot of lives. You know, to the extent that
00:09:19.180
I've caused you to drink more coffee, because my show is called that, I've literally saved lives.
00:09:26.080
But only, only if science is true, which it isn't. So I'm not going to take any victory laps on this,
00:09:35.920
but maybe. Who knows? As long as it agrees with me, I'm fine with it.
00:09:40.880
How many of you remember a weird prediction I made a long time ago, years and years and years ago?
00:09:50.160
I said that the most important technology for the future was, does anybody remember what I said?
00:09:57.520
Many years ago, the most important technology for the future is, I want to see if anybody remembers,
00:10:04.700
holes. Holes. Holes. Right. So do some of you remember me saying that? I want to make sure I'm
00:10:14.920
not like hallucinating or something. Yeah. I think some of you remember it. I probably said it, I don't
00:10:19.700
know, 15 years ago or something. Here's what I meant. There's an incredible amount of energy and
00:10:26.080
resources under the ground. It's just hard to get to. If you could figure out a better way to dig a hole,
00:10:32.980
you could do underground farming. You could build, it'd be easier to put utilities in. It'd be
00:10:39.800
easier to build communities, easier to build underground transportation. I mean, all kinds
00:10:46.060
of things. Yeah. But you can mostly get to the geothermal energy below the earth. If you get to
00:10:53.280
geothermal, then it's basically almost unlimited clean energy. And you don't have to go very far.
00:11:02.980
Because it's probably close to where you are. Well, sure enough, it turns out that Texas is
00:11:11.120
becoming a geothermal center, because I guess they changed some laws to make it a little easier for
00:11:18.740
geothermal people. But there's a company called Bedrock Energy, a new startup. And they've got,
00:11:25.540
they use high powered radio waves to drill through hard rocks to get down to the good stuff, the energy
00:11:35.460
below the earth. And it's just one of a number of companies who are figuring out innovative ways to
00:11:41.540
make a hole. So there it is. Yeah. The entire, you know, energy business or reason for having wars
00:11:51.040
overseas, you know, it's all about energy. Most of our wars, I think, are, you know, energy related or
00:11:57.080
at least financial. So this is like a big, big, big, big, big deal. If any one of these startups works,
00:12:08.320
and it turns out that this company can make a hole really efficiently, that changes everything.
00:12:13.520
And it'll be one of my best predictions of all time, that holes are the most important technology
00:12:20.680
of the future. Holes. All right. If you wondered if we live in a simulation, and you're looking for
00:12:28.280
proof, every day I give you more proof, but here it is. In the real world, we're asked to believe
00:12:36.380
that Donald Trump is in a trial that involves a porn star, and that witness David Pecker apparently
00:12:45.460
is going to be testifying for a second day, even though he doesn't seem to be directly related
00:12:50.580
to the charges. And all I'm going to say is that if the district attorney is trying to
00:12:56.500
grab Trump by the Pecker, you live in a simulation. Can I just let that one sit there for a while?
00:13:08.280
Yeah, they're trying to grab him by the Pecker. That clearly we're a simulation. There's no way that
00:13:14.060
happens on its own. All right. And of course, the big part of the story about the Trump and the porn
00:13:22.340
star is a gag order. I've never heard the phrase gag more often than I did with the Stormy Daniels
00:13:32.740
story. Now, how is that happening accidentally? Confirmed. Confirmed. This is a simulation.
00:13:43.200
Well, Australia, as you know, has some new laws about online censorship, and they've got some crazy
00:13:51.080
woman who is an American apparently in charge of censoring stuff on platforms. Now, as you know,
00:13:59.260
it's not Australia working alone. They are suspected to be, according to, let's say, the Mike Benz
00:14:06.020
theory of the world, where the U.S. government gets other countries that we work with and other NGOs
00:14:12.060
and stuff to do their dirty work that they're not legally allowed to do, such as censoring Americans.
00:14:16.860
But if Australia censors X and they make it somehow stick worldwide, then they've effectively
00:14:24.960
censored an American company, but America didn't do it. Oh, it's not our fault. Australia did that
00:14:30.020
when we asked them to do it. So we don't know the details of the specific case, but it is a general
00:14:36.820
model that our government asks other countries to do the things that we can't do legally to our own
00:14:42.600
citizens. And so there's now a battle between Australia and the X platform. As Elon Musk
00:14:51.380
wittily noted, that the fact that Australia is targeting X in particular is because the other
00:14:59.640
platforms did whatever they wanted. So X is the only one that said they wouldn't censor what Australia
00:15:06.480
wants them to censor, which means Australia has certified X as the only place that has free speech,
00:15:13.360
which is what Musk said. And he's right. The fact that they got all the other companies
00:15:20.100
to change their censoring policies means that X is the only free speech platform.
00:15:27.940
And Australia is trying to take them down and basically put them out of business by jawboning
00:15:35.220
them and attacking them, et cetera. And here's what I think. I think we should reconsider being
00:15:44.360
allies with Australia. Because if we think that freedom of speech is our bedrock right, and it's the
00:15:53.160
one that protects the other ones along with the Second Amendment, if they get rid of their own
00:15:58.420
guns, which they did, becoming a cautionary tale to the rest of us, that basically they can be
00:16:05.100
completely abused now because they have no self-defense, and they try to bring that to America,
00:16:11.500
we should rethink being allies. Because my allies don't try to ruin my free speech.
00:16:16.500
That's not my allies. Now, I get the allies don't always agree, but they don't go after my most
00:16:24.040
cherished personal right. If we were agreeing about the import of pomegranates, I'd be like,
00:16:31.980
okay, that's just normal stuff allies bicker about. If they wanted to buy our best submarines,
00:16:38.040
but we didn't want to sell it to them for some reason, well, that's what allies do. They negotiate
00:16:44.660
that stuff. But when I've got an ally, an ally, an ally is trying to remove my freedom of speech,
00:16:54.380
essentially. I mean, I realize I'm speaking in a general way, but the practical impact of it would
00:17:01.140
be to cripple the last remaining free speech platform in America. Nope. I'm sorry, Australians,
00:17:08.380
you can't be my fucking friend and try to take away my freedom of speech. Doesn't work.
00:17:14.660
Doesn't work. I will negotiate about pomegranates. We can talk about, you know, NATO. But no,
00:17:23.500
you don't get to be my fucking friend if you're telling me to shut up. Period. I'm not going to
00:17:30.240
travel there. I'm not going to give you a dime. I'm not going to support you in any way. And in fact,
00:17:34.300
if your fucking country gets attacked, I'm not going to be advocating that we protect you.
00:17:38.940
We'd have to because of NATO, but I'm not going to be in favor of it. No, fuck you. Fuck your whole
00:17:46.620
goddamn fucking country. Leave us the fuck alone, Australia. Leave us the fuck alone. Get your
00:17:54.340
goddamn censoring fucking fingers away from our American throats. Stay the fuck away from us.
00:18:01.720
If you want to get, if you want to be Chinese, go ahead. We'll let you be Chinese because they're
00:18:09.160
going to conquer your fucking little island in 10 seconds. Leave us the fuck alone if you want us
00:18:14.860
to defend you when the big boats come your way. Leave us the fuck alone. So that's my last word on that.
00:18:24.100
Jeff Clark is pointing out that the latest talking points on the Democrats is that
00:18:31.180
if Trump is convicted, he couldn't get a job as a mall employee.
00:18:37.720
And apparently at least three entities said it that Jeff Clark picked up on. And yes,
00:18:44.160
that does mean that there is a central chief anti-Trump propagandist, as Jeff Clark says.
00:18:51.500
Literally, they organize their talking points. Now, I spend a ton of time interacting with people
00:19:00.060
on the right. I've never heard of any like organized talking points. Have you? I've definitely
00:19:07.120
heard people say things that other people copy if they like it, you know, if it's a good meme or just
00:19:13.180
a good phrasing or something. So that definitely happens. But I haven't seen any organized. Here's what
00:19:18.940
all of you should say. Has anybody ever seen that in the Republican world? It might exist,
00:19:27.220
but I don't see it. Just wondering if that exists.
00:19:34.860
Caitlin Collins of CNN says, the world spent more on military costs and weapons in 2023 than it had
00:19:42.600
been 35 years before that, driven in part by the war in Ukraine and threat of an expanded Russian
00:19:48.920
invasion, according to some independent analysis. Do you have any doubt that our wars are driven by
00:19:55.920
profit? Does anybody think that this war is really driven by some sense of defending the country and
00:20:03.520
defending Europe and defending democracy and freedom? It doesn't look like it's even slightly
00:20:09.980
legitimate. Yeah. To me, it looks 95% profit and 5% military advantage of some kind, I guess.
00:20:22.900
Australia is now part of NATO? I'm seeing, is that true? I'm seeing somebody in the comments said
00:20:30.060
Australia is not part of NATO because it's not North Atlantic. Are they? Oh, there's a different
00:20:41.700
treaty, right? Are they part of a different treaty? CETO. Okay. So we have a different military alliance.
00:20:55.660
All right. Same thing. Thank you for that correction. Not members of NATO, but members of CETO.
00:21:03.440
All right. It's the same, it's the same problem either way, but thank you for that correction.
00:21:09.680
Ontario, the wait is over. The gold standard of online casinos has arrived. Golden Nugget Online
00:21:16.060
Casino is live, bringing Vegas style excitement and a world-class gaming experience right to your
00:21:21.580
fingertips. Whether you're a seasoned player or just starting, signing up is fast and simple. And in
00:21:27.380
just a few clicks, you can have access to our exclusive library of the best slots and top-tier
00:21:32.200
table games. Make the most of your downtime with unbeatable promotions and jackpots that can turn
00:21:37.360
any mundane moment into a golden opportunity at Golden Nugget Online Casino. Take a spin on the slots,
00:21:44.080
challenge yourself at the tables, or join a live dealer game to feel the thrill of real-time action,
00:21:48.980
all from the comfort of your own devices. Why settle for less when you can go for the gold
00:21:53.880
at Golden Nugget Online Casino. Gambling problem? Call Connex Ontario, 1-866-531-2600.
00:22:01.940
19 and over. Physically present in Ontario. Eligibility restrictions apply.
00:22:05.820
See goldennuggetcasino.com for details. Please play responsibly.
00:22:09.360
Well, we found out more about the Mar-a-Lago boxes and the Jack Smith thing. And I keep trying
00:22:20.440
to read all of the... So there's a news story that the judge said a bunch of stuff had to be
00:22:25.460
unredacted. So for the first time, we're seeing documents that had been heavily redacted, and we
00:22:32.580
didn't know why. So here's why. Scott is confident in his ignorance. That's everybody. Everybody who's
00:22:42.300
confident is confident in their ignorance. Here's my suggestion to you. I always tell you that I
00:22:52.740
always try to set my confidence level at above its actual, you know, what would be realistic.
00:22:58.040
Now, I tell you that directly, because it's a life strategy. You should always be a little more
00:23:04.000
confident than you think is maybe legitimate. I model that every day. It's very intentional.
00:23:12.020
And if you're picking up on it and saying, oh, you're very confident in your ignorance,
00:23:16.920
I'm also confident in my incompetence. Intentionally. So I'm more confident about things I can do than I
00:23:26.780
could really do. I'm more confident about my intelligence and my knowledge than I know is
00:23:31.440
true. Now, I'd like to ask you, how is your strategy of thinking you're a fucking idiot?
00:23:38.140
Is that working out for you? Because if it is, I'll take your advice. Like thinking that you're a
00:23:45.080
worthless piece of shit. Is that lighting you up every day? You're like, ooh, I'm at least better than
00:23:53.100
this cartoonist guy because I know I'm a piece of shit. But he seems to act like he doesn't even know
00:23:59.780
it. So that makes me a little bit superior. And I think I'm going to need to note this in the middle
00:24:05.480
of his show. Yeah. So thank you for that. We'd like that good life advice from a loser. How to think
00:24:14.960
you're a piece of shit? And how to scream it in the middle of a live broadcast? Because that's the
00:24:21.520
thing we needed to know right then. All right. Anyway, Grok tried to summarize this whole Jack
00:24:28.820
Smith, Mar-a-Lago, redacted, unredacted situation. And honestly, I didn't understand the whole thing.
00:24:37.120
I think you'd really have to, you know, marinate in it a little bit before you understood it. So I'm
00:24:43.320
going to read Grok's summary on X. So the AI Grok summarizes some of these stories. So just know
00:24:50.900
it's coming from AI. Okay. Judge Aileen Cannon, recent order. I love that there's a judge named
00:24:59.140
Cannon. Isn't Cannon a great name for a judge? Look out for the Cannon. I love that name. All right.
00:25:08.140
Aileen Cannon's recent order to unredact key evidence about that Mar-a-Lago boxes. And the
00:25:14.820
unredacted documents, now this is according to Grok, show the Biden administration's involvement
00:25:20.160
in developing a criminal case against Trump. Wait a minute. If that's true, that would be
00:25:38.140
I'm just reading a comment about somebody screamed about me.
00:25:49.380
Let me ask this. How many of you have had a bad situation in which my name came up and
00:25:56.240
some Democrats started screaming about me? How many of you had that situation? Have you
00:26:02.980
had trouble when my name comes up? Because I've heard that I've heard it a number of times
00:26:10.360
that people just go, they just go batshit crazy when they hear, they hear my name point of
00:26:16.040
sentence. Look at all the yeses. Oh my goodness. Now, how many of those, how many of the people
00:26:28.220
scream and get upset if you mention my name? How many of them know anything about me? I'll
00:26:35.460
bet none. They probably don't know anything about me. If they believe the news, they wouldn't
00:26:41.040
know anything about me. My wife is not fond of you. I've chummed the waters with your name.
00:26:50.540
Well, if you haven't tried it, you should try it. Especially the batshit crazy woman segment,
00:26:59.720
I think would be very fun for you to try it. Anyway, so back to these unredacted documents.
00:27:06.880
They do show, according to Grok, they show that the Biden administration coordinated these cases.
00:27:11.760
That would make Trump right when he says these are Biden coordinated cases. If they coordinated one of
00:27:18.540
them and the other DAs have some connection to the White House, it's looking strongly like Biden
00:27:25.580
is trying to take out his competitor, which we all knew. I mean, I think he all knew that.
00:27:34.000
But to have some documented evidence of it is a new step. It also contradicted previous claims
00:27:43.640
by showing that Trump had previously cooperated with the National Archives. So the claim that he
00:27:49.420
wasn't cooperating with them, there was a document in which they redacted evidence that he had
00:27:57.140
cooperated with them. Just hold that in your mind. Hold that in your mind for a moment.
00:28:03.260
The main complaint is that he wasn't cooperating. There was a document that suggested he had cooperated
00:28:10.900
more than maybe had been presented, and they redacted it. Do you think there was any reason
00:28:17.720
for redacting it other than it was good for Trump? Of course not. Of course not. They redacted that right
00:28:26.300
in front of us. I'm going to say it again. Right in front of us. They did that right in front of us.
00:28:34.980
They're trying to put Trump in prison on bullshit right in front of us. And let me just say it
00:28:42.000
again. One day in prison and the social contract is ripped up. I don't know what that means. And I
00:28:50.260
don't, I don't recommend any violence, but the rules are completely off if you put them in jail.
00:28:56.140
I mean, I think everybody's just sort of going along with it because they're not ready to like
00:29:02.600
get their pitchforks and torches and do anything. And we don't know exactly what to do. But I'll tell
00:29:09.640
you, if you put them in jail, everybody knows what to do. That will, that will answer all of my
00:29:14.600
questions. The social contract, totally gone. All the rules are gone after that. So if they want to make
00:29:22.620
that move, just know it's really unpredictable. It could work. They could end up just, you know,
00:29:29.820
ruling forever and put Trump in jail and put anybody in jail who complains about it. Could
00:29:35.460
totally work. But it's very unpredictable. And unpredictable means in every possible way.
00:29:43.220
So I don't need to be more detailed than that. Let's just say it'll be unpredictable in every
00:29:48.560
possible way. And you really don't want that. There's no way to know how that ends up.
00:29:57.140
So, yes, the president, or at least Trump, is being railroaded. It is a witch hunt. It is an
00:30:05.940
illegitimate process. They're doing it right in front of us. They're barely trying to hide it.
00:30:11.060
And there's concern that if Trump actually got back in office, that some of his critics
00:30:19.980
would be put in jail. And they certainly should be. Yeah. The things they're doing are clearly
00:30:25.540
criminal. They're clearly treasonous. They're clearly insurrectionists. It's clearly
00:30:30.020
non-democratic process. So I think, yeah, there are some big name people who literally need to be in
00:30:37.440
jail whenever that's possible. Speaking of Biden, Russia and China, it's been reported to have
00:30:48.480
stopped using the U.S. dollar in their mutual trade. Now, I suppose that's okay as long as
00:30:54.520
both of their currencies stay somewhat stable enough, I guess. I have a hard time knowing if
00:31:01.640
this is a big deal or not. You know, it is a big deal if the U.S. dollar becomes no longer the
00:31:08.240
preferred reserve currency, you know, the thing that makes it safe to trade. If they feel safe enough
00:31:15.520
without it, that could be a problem. It could make the value of the dollar plunge, I suppose.
00:31:21.880
Keep an eye on that. If that's what happens, then Biden would certainly be the worst president of all
00:31:27.660
time because he would be presiding over almost the total destruction of the country if that happens.
00:31:36.000
Well, there are some new lawsuits about TikTok allegedly convincing kids to commit self-harm.
00:31:43.220
I'll just use that word, the self-harm word. And let's say lethal self-harm.
00:31:50.260
And there's a parent who believes that their child, a teenager, learned on TikTok or was encouraged
00:32:01.800
on TikTok to do lethal self-harm. And there's some other lawsuits about other platforms. Let's see,
00:32:11.380
there's separately, there's two tribal nations who sued TikTok, Meta, Snap, and Google,
00:32:16.660
saying that their platforms were addictive and dangerous by design and it was increasing the
00:32:22.340
suicide rates, et cetera. But here's the problem. I don't believe there's any way to win a case
00:32:29.040
about an individual. I don't believe that you can show that TikTok made any one person kill themselves
00:32:37.180
because it would be correlation, not causation. You wouldn't be able to prove the causation.
00:32:42.820
You would just say, well, people who have these thoughts look for that kind of content. So,
00:32:49.840
you know, one caused the other. It wasn't that the content caused the action.
00:32:53.900
And that would be, I think that would be sufficient that I wouldn't expect a jury to agree that
00:33:00.260
causation had been proven. However, at a population level, it's different.
00:33:06.520
If you could show that at a population level, people who use certain platforms were more likely
00:33:12.360
to do certain things, that might get you a lot closer to maybe not proving causation,
00:33:19.240
but proving it well enough that you can win a lawsuit because you just need a majority. You don't
00:33:24.240
need 100% of people to agree. So, yeah, I don't think the individual lawsuits are going to win,
00:33:31.460
but there is a way to know how dangerous it is by looking at a population level.
00:33:38.880
There's a new word I'm seeing being used, immigration restrictionists. So, people who want
00:33:44.660
less immigration are now called, I saw this in the Hill, restrictionists. Why do you think that's
00:33:52.760
the new word, a restrictionist? Why do they need a new word? Well, what if it was obviously,
00:34:01.440
it's obvious to everyone involved that immigration has gotten out of control and that for the defense
00:34:07.860
of the homeland, all patriots believe it should be dialed back. So, one way you could say it is,
00:34:16.800
the people, the patriots who want to protect the homeland would like immigration to be more controlled.
00:34:22.720
Would that be fair? The patriots who want to protect the homeland want less immigration.
00:34:32.560
But no, the Hill calls it, they would be restrictionists. Restrictionists. What does a
00:34:39.280
restrictionist sound like to you? A restrictionist. At a government level, if somebody is restricting
00:34:46.640
you, what are they doing? Are they taking your freedom? Are they taking your democracy? Because
00:34:55.760
it sounds a little like they're taking your freedom. Huh? That's the sort of thing a dictator does.
00:35:01.520
Dictators do that, right? Fascists take your freedom. And I told you the other day that something
00:35:07.760
like, I don't know, 10 years ago, I'm not sure when, the online definition of fascist changed to say
00:35:15.520
right-wing. They actually changed the definition of a word to make it sound Republican. That really
00:35:22.960
happened. Like, honest to God, they changed the definition of a word for political reasons. Like,
00:35:29.920
in the dictionary. Like, dictionary.com. Because it used to say stuff like, you know, like a dictator
00:35:38.000
leader and the government's working with the big corporations. And they can often have a racist
00:35:46.560
agenda as well. But it turned into usually right-wing. I don't even know if it is usually right-wing,
00:35:55.360
but I know that's not the important part. You know, the important part's all the other stuff.
00:36:00.880
Nobody would care if you're right-wing if you didn't do all the fascist stuff. They're pretty
00:36:06.880
different. So, um, if somebody calls you a restrictionist, you can call them a filthy cunt.
00:36:18.160
Because I think that would be similar in kind of insult. I think if somebody uses the restrictionist
00:36:24.480
word on you, you can pull out the c-word. Even on live TV. I would do it on live TV. Honestly,
00:36:30.880
I would. Because if somebody calls you that, they're trying to paint you into a box where you
00:36:35.760
can be acted against physically. It's a physical safety risk if you let people call you a restrictionist,
00:36:44.800
which makes you think somebody's taking your democracy away. Yeah. Call those people patriots,
00:36:51.360
and I'll be okay with you. Or just be, how about just citizens? Why not just call them citizens
00:36:57.760
with a different opinion? When did that stop working? Why can't we just say, well, you group
00:37:03.840
have this opinion, this group has that opinion, and how about that? No, we have to put an insulting
00:37:09.520
name on them. They're restrictionists. So Biden had his fine people moment. He said, and I quote,
00:37:20.320
Biden said, I condemn the anti-Semitic protests. And then he added, I also condemn those who don't
00:37:27.920
understand what's going on with the Palestinians. Thus making some moral equivalence
00:37:34.000
statements between Hamas and Israel, which reminded some people of the fine people situation.
00:37:42.960
The difference being that Trump never said the fine people thing. It was a hoax.
00:37:48.640
And so this is sort of the Trump's perfect third act because Trump was blamed of making a moral
00:38:05.600
equivalence when in fact, he was just talking about different people. And he said specifically,
00:38:11.120
you know, I disavow the white supremacists. So Trump did not make a moral equivalence. He did the
00:38:18.000
opposite. He said, I disavow you people. That's the opposite of the moral equivalence.
00:38:25.520
Where Biden said, you know, they both have a point.
00:38:29.760
You know, you really have to see both sides of this. So he did, there are fine people on both sides.
00:38:36.400
He actually did it without using fine people word. So it's kind of the perfect Trump third act,
00:38:42.800
because you had to get rid of the fine people hoax and, and, you know, make that a Biden thing,
00:38:49.040
which is now a thing. And it's kind of perfect. It destroyed Biden's entire 2020 campaign platform
00:38:58.240
and caused a lot, a lot of people to say that the fine people thing was a hoax,
00:39:02.880
which now they do refer to. I saw the RNC posted and they just called the fine people thing a hoax.
00:39:10.640
You know, now it's just common knowledge among at least the right. It didn't used to be. And by the
00:39:15.280
way, I think, I think I might've helped a little bit in making sure that at least the Republicans
00:39:21.120
know that that's a hoax, which they all seem to know.
00:39:24.000
Joel Pollack was writing about this in Breitbart. So if you want, if you want, if you want to see it
00:39:32.320
in all its beautiful glory, I recommend you to that article.
00:39:42.720
So I post by Michael Oxford, who's who found a group called Crowds on Demand.
00:39:49.920
So they actually advertise and you can hire them to create a fake protest or a fake crowd to do
00:39:56.160
anything. Now, do you think that the Hamas protesters are organic? Or do you think they're organized by
00:40:04.880
somebody that the protesters even are not aware of who organized them? I don't believe there are any
00:40:11.200
organic protests in the United States. I believe that we are so non-protesty that unless somebody
00:40:20.640
says, all right, we're going to have to like just hire somebody to organize these people because
00:40:24.640
they're not going to just do it on their own spontaneously. I think that all the major protests
00:40:30.000
from BLM to Antifa to this one to Wall Street, all of them, I think every one of them are fake.
00:40:38.400
They're all organized and they're not representing necessarily the will of too many people.
00:40:44.880
Yeah. So we certainly know that most of them are organized. I would assume these are too.
00:40:50.560
I don't know that they're organized with this group Crowds on Demand,
00:40:54.320
but once you know that that's a thing, it's pretty easy to imagine that at least the organizers
00:41:01.200
are paid. Probably by somebody. All right. Washington Times reports that there's a new class of voters
00:41:11.760
called safety moms and they're moving toward Trump because they're worried about crime and the open
00:41:18.480
borders. So the safety moms are moving toward Trump. Okay. Let's do a review of who's moving toward
00:41:26.960
Trump. So he's got black voters. He's got men. He's got Hispanic moving toward him.
00:41:38.400
So we're, we're meant to believe that every demographic group is moving toward Trump,
00:41:48.720
all of them. And Trump is leading by a lot on policy. If you look at the policy preferences,
00:41:55.360
it's not even close. It's Trump all the way down the top five policy important things.
00:42:01.360
So Trump is trouncing every demographic group and every policy. And at the top level, he's tied.
00:42:12.480
How's that possible? So at the national polls that, you know, just show the national preference,
00:42:18.720
he's tied. Now, before you say, Scott, Scott, Scott, let me mansplain the electoral college
00:42:26.160
and how only the swing states matter and only the electoral college matters. Shut up.
00:42:35.280
I know. I know. But it still tells you something if the national polls are tied,
00:42:41.680
but all of the subcategories are clearly and unambiguously moving in one direction.
00:42:47.600
That's not possible. Unless there's somebody they're not telling us about, some group that's
00:42:55.040
massively moving toward Biden that had never been there before. And they're not going to mention
00:43:01.600
that? Do you think nobody would mention that? If people, if there was, if there were any demographic
00:43:07.520
group, any group that was moving toward Biden, you don't think that would be a headline? Of course it
00:43:14.000
would. So every demographic group and every policy is pro-Trump and they're tied at the national level,
00:43:22.960
which is different than the electoral college and only the swing states matter.
00:43:27.760
I have to say that for the dumb people who are listening.
00:43:32.720
So I don't know. There's something going on. I don't know what it is. Something going on.
00:43:38.000
Yeah. Anyway, Christopher Ruffo is still killing it and working with Luke Rosiak. The two of them,
00:43:51.200
I guess they found that the DEI director of UCLA School of Medicine is a major plagiarist,
00:43:58.800
like really major plagiarist, as in the parts that weren't plagiarized didn't even look like she was
00:44:04.000
qualified to be a sixth grader. But massive plagiarization, who allegedly stole thousands
00:44:11.120
of words from 10 other papers to fraudulently get a PhD, paid $140,000 per year.
00:44:20.960
And this comes, as Ruffo says, comes after Harvard's DEI higher president, Claudine Gay,
00:44:28.320
resigned for serial plagiarism. And Harvard's DEI chief and Title IX coordinator have been outed as
00:44:37.600
plagiarist as well. And it's pretty bad. So it turns out there are quite a few people in high-level
00:44:49.760
jobs who simply plagiarized to get PhDs. Now, if you told me that I could get a PhD by plagiarizing,
00:44:59.040
I think I'd have one by now. I didn't even realize that works. Did you know you could literally just
00:45:04.640
plagiarize somebody's PhD thesis and before nobody could check? So you could just literally just steal
00:45:11.840
shit. I had no idea that that worked so well. How many other people do you think have fake PhDs?
00:45:19.040
It must be massive. I'm not going to trust any PhD I see anymore. Anyway, here's a DEI persuasion tip.
00:45:30.640
Persuasion is mostly about what you focus on and hear about the most. And you think that people use
00:45:41.680
their logic and their common sense and all these things that don't really exist
00:45:45.920
to come to their opinions. But they don't. They don't. They mostly build a world view based on
00:45:51.920
what they hear the most. So if you are born and grow up in the Islamic civilization,
00:45:58.560
you're probably going to be Islamic, you know, for that and other reasons as well. So whatever it is
00:46:05.280
you hear the most, if you're watching CNN, you think that's real. If you're watching Fox News,
00:46:09.600
you think that's real. So in general, whatever you hear the most is going to be your world view.
00:46:14.800
In general, some people could be different. So here's the problem. If we talk continuously about DEI,
00:46:25.200
what would be the predicted outcome of that? DEI, DEI, DEI, DEI, DEI. Well, the predicted outcome is
00:46:34.480
that that would become your dominant filter when you're looking at events in the world. And it has.
00:46:41.840
So when a big boat runs into a bridge in Baltimore, how many people said, well,
00:46:48.240
probably a DEI hire. It wasn't. It had nothing to do with DEI. It had nothing to do with race.
00:46:54.800
And in fact, the captain of the boat probably did a really good job, they say. Really fast acting.
00:47:00.960
So the people who yelled DEI were all wrong. As far as I can tell, they were all wrong. But
00:47:10.960
can you understand why, if you're talking about DEI all day long,
00:47:18.240
isn't it obvious that people would see that as their dominant filter?
00:47:22.800
There's no way around that. If it's your dominant conversation, it will also be people's dominant
00:47:28.400
filter. It's the first thing that they will think of. Now, what happens when it's the first thing you
00:47:33.520
think of everywhere all the time? And you get a new coworker who's got a PhD
00:47:41.920
and is one of the groups that would benefit from DEI.
00:47:46.080
What's your first assumption? Unqualified. Is that your fault? It's not.
00:47:52.800
We've created a system which is instilling bias in people that didn't have it before.
00:48:02.720
Right? If somebody, if they can't stop talking about DEI, all I hear is, oh, in the real world,
00:48:09.760
that means you hire a whole bunch of people who are unqualified. In the perfect world, it means giving
00:48:15.760
everybody equal opportunity. But we don't live in any kind of world like that. If you give managers
00:48:21.280
the goal of diversity and your paychecks is going to depend on it, you're going to get diversity
00:48:28.800
to get your paycheck. And if you can't get the highest quality of people, you're not going to
00:48:33.440
spend your whole day and everything else looking for them. You're going to say, well, I hope I get
00:48:39.360
lucky. I got somebody to fill the diversity slot. I just hope it isn't a disaster. But we didn't have
00:48:46.560
as many applicants in that category. So I just didn't have as many choices. So for reasons that
00:48:52.720
have nothing to do with anybody's genes or culture or gender or any of that stuff, DEI should necessarily
00:49:00.320
by its design, according to everything we know about human beings, it should force a massive incompetence
00:49:08.080
crisis upon the whole country. You should. Like if you just saw it drawn on paper and you said,
00:49:16.240
how do you think this is going to turn out? We're going to talk continuously about one group of
00:49:22.000
people and make sure that they have extra, extra opportunities, which in the real world is going
00:49:27.520
to turn out to racism against white people. How's that going to look in the long run? Exactly like it
00:49:34.640
looks now. You're going to massively increase bias, which it has. You're going to make people see that
00:49:42.400
as their first filter. Oh, black woman with a PhD, probably a plagiarist. Is that fair? No. No.
00:49:53.280
That is super fucked up. Imagine putting in the work. You're getting your PhD the real way.
00:50:02.400
And then you walk into the office and everybody looks at you and they're like,
00:50:06.240
I read the news. I've been following Christopher Ruffo. Not so sure about your PhD.
00:50:13.360
The worst case scenario right there. There's your worst fucking case scenario.
00:50:17.920
And that's what they managed to. They built a system that guarantees the worst case scenario.
00:50:24.320
Now, it will also guarantee more diversity. But it also comes with a massive incompetence wave
00:50:32.640
and an amount of discrimination and, well, not discrimination, but bias, probably more than we've
00:50:39.520
ever seen since right after slavery ended, I would guess. I doubt it's ever been worse.
00:50:46.080
So you get what you design. The design pretty much guarantees that we'd be right here.
00:50:52.160
So I would suggest that if you want less of something, once you have the basics set up,
00:50:59.680
you should talk less about it because you're going to get more of it if it's all you're talking about.
00:51:07.600
Also on TikTok, there's a young woman who's doing a show about all the anti-white TikToks.
00:51:14.080
So apparently there are quite a few videos on TikTok that are explicitly anti-white. You know,
00:51:20.240
white people are bad. White people are terrible. And Misha Petrov, a young woman, she's getting a lot of
00:51:28.800
attention because she's just showing them. Once you see them all together, it's pretty shocking.
00:51:39.360
There's a study that says treatment from female doctors leads to lower mortality.
00:51:44.960
So in other words, the female doctors are getting better results than male doctors.
00:51:50.560
Well, all studies are a toss-up. So we can't say that it's true or not true.
00:52:01.280
here are some speculations. Do you think that they checked by age?
00:52:13.280
Do you think they checked by age? Let me just put out some speculation.
00:52:19.440
If they didn't check by age, wouldn't they have a lot more male doctors who are older
00:52:25.600
and a lot more female doctors who are younger? Would that not be true?
00:52:32.800
Because here's why I think. I believe the number of medical school
00:52:36.400
applicants who are women is now at least half. Whereas in the old days, it was less than half.
00:52:44.160
And so if you had, if you looked at older doctors, they would be more male, would they not?
00:52:52.720
And would it be, would it be reasonable to assume that an older doctor
00:53:02.000
If only because of, you know, more recent training, something like that. I don't know.
00:53:06.960
Now, I'm not saying I know that that's true. So I don't want you to, you know,
00:53:12.400
stop going to your older doctor. But if you didn't control for age, do you really know what you found?
00:53:19.360
Because there should be a big difference in age as well. How about, how about demographics?
00:53:26.160
Did they check to see the, the racial makeup of the men and women who are doctors?
00:53:31.760
Here's something else that DEI predicts. And I'm not saying this happened here, but it predicts it should.
00:53:40.880
What should happen is if a, a white man walks in to get a job as a doctor or applies to medical school,
00:53:50.640
let's say, a white man, it's, it's going to be hard to get in unless they're super qualified.
00:53:56.480
Same with an Asian man, I suppose. They have to be super qualified.
00:54:01.760
Um, but if you were, let's say, let's say, if you were, let me put it this way. If you're a woman,
00:54:14.400
you're automatically in with DEI. If you're a white woman, is that correct?
00:54:20.400
If you're a white woman, DEI would, would promote you, right? If you're a white man, they would not.
00:54:34.320
Correct? Because you wouldn't be DEI. So you should, if you're really looking for the male female difference,
00:54:41.760
you're going to have to control for demographics as well. Do you think they did that? Did you think
00:54:48.960
they controlled for demographics? Because if the men were mostly one kind of person and the women were
00:54:55.760
a different kind of person, then you're not really necessarily checking male and female,
00:55:01.680
because you might have an age difference, you might have a demographic difference.
00:55:05.200
And I'm not saying that the demographic difference is anything about genes or culture. I'm just saying
00:55:11.360
that the, the, the, uh, the conclusion that this study came to is that men and women doctor differently.
00:55:21.520
That's kind of dangerous, isn't it? They found out that men and women practice medicine differently.
00:55:28.800
Do you think that they checked that or they just threw that in there because it sounds like
00:55:32.720
good bullshit? No, they didn't check that. They didn't study if men and women practice differently.
00:55:40.320
No, that wasn't part of the study. They just made that up. Do you think that if the men had been the
00:55:46.800
better doctors, they would have said, well, it looks like the men are doing different things, getting better.
00:55:56.640
They probably wouldn't even show you the study. But because the women did better, according to the study,
00:56:03.600
they say it's because women are smarter. Basically, they just do better things.
00:56:09.440
All of the science is bullshit. But hey, evolution is good, right? Yeah. All of this is so obvious
00:56:17.360
bullshit. But evolution, all just what you want it to be.
00:56:25.040
If you're coming in late, um, if we're not a simulation, then I think evolution is probably
00:56:40.560
Uh, Rasmussen asked the likely voters about Biden's Israel policy.
00:56:47.440
21% think that Biden's policy is too pro-Israel.
00:56:55.680
But my question to you is what percentage of the voters, likely voters, believe that
00:57:01.680
Biden's policy on Israel is, uh, just about right. What percentage do you think his policy is
00:57:13.760
Anybody want to prove your magical abilities by guessing the percentage?
00:57:27.440
Wow. So many of you guessed really, really close with 25. But it was 26. It was 26.
00:57:37.760
So good job for you. All right. Well, here's what I think. I think summer's coming.
00:57:46.960
I think that things are going to start looking up.
00:57:49.280
And I think that, uh, there, there are a lot of things that are heading in the right direction.
00:57:56.480
At the same time, there are things that aren't.
00:57:59.280
But I do think that this is not that different than, you know, struggles the country's had before.
00:58:05.120
And I think we'll figure our way through it. But we're definitely gonna have to change the president.
00:58:10.000
So one way or another, whether it's RFK Jr. or Trump, the current situation has to change.
00:58:20.320
There's, there's no way this is survivable for four more years.
00:58:23.920
So I really worry that, uh, four, four more years of Biden could be just fatal.
00:58:28.880
Um, now I know, I know people say the same thing about, uh, Trump,
00:58:35.920
but Trump was president for four years and you can see that that's not fatal.
00:58:40.720
And Biden's been president for three. And you can see that that looks very fatal.
00:58:45.680
If he just kept doing what he's doing, it does look fatal. There was nothing that Trump was doing
00:58:50.960
that if you straight lined it would be fatal. Think about it. There's nothing that Trump did,
00:58:57.360
except for the debt that nobody gets a free pass in the debt. So everybody's guilty about that.
00:59:04.800
But he wasn't doing things where you just say, well, common sense says, if you keep doing this,
00:59:10.160
it'll destroy the world. It was the opposite. So that's not the same.
00:59:16.400
All right. Ladies and gentlemen, uh, thanks for joining on the tumble or tumble on the rumble
00:59:23.440
and, uh, YouTube and next platforms. And I will say goodbye to you. I'm going to talk to the local
00:59:29.200
subscribers separately if this technology works. So yesterday, this didn't work, but I'll try it again.