Episode 2016 Scott Adams: UFO Shot Down? Did Biden Start Interplanetary War? Project Veritas & More
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Senator Fetterman's condition
Project Veritas, James O'Keefe
Dilbert filter on Pfizer GoF meeting
NYT goes after VP Harris
Can civilians legally kill invading soldiers?
Whiteboard: Cartel
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of civilization, as long as it lasts.
And it might not last much longer, but we'll get to that in a minute.
Now, did you see what I have in my hands?
Yes, documents, paper, printed from my own new HP printer that has Wi-Fi and everything, and everything's going well today.
Nothing can stop me, except possibly an alien invasion.
But if you'd like to Raise your spirits today.
And I think you do.
All you need is a cupper, a mugger, a glass, a tanker, a chalice, a side, a canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better on this planet and beyond.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Ah, yeah.
That is the happiness of a new printer that's working perfectly. - Really?
So thank you HP for the help.
Let's go private over here on over here on local.
Sorry, you're private now.
Well, let's see.
Anything happening in the news?
Let's see.
Find the front.
Oh, it looks like it prints on both sides, so I don't know what the hell I'm doing.
Now, was it a few weeks ago?
Let me ask you this.
I need to do a little check of sanity here.
Am I the only one who noticed that just a few weeks ago, a lot of people were saying on Twitter, I think there's going to be a UFO event to distract us from the news.
Did anybody see that besides me?
I didn't imagine that, right?
There were in fact... Okay, I'm seeing confirmations in the comments.
There were in fact people saying, I think there's going to be a UFO event to distract us from Ukraine and inflation.
So, in the news...
It's possible that another planet is watching Earth because AI has become unconscious, and they think it would be a good show?
Maybe.
Maybe.
So, as you know, there was a long cylindrical object at 40,000 feet over Alaska, and so Biden ordered it shot down.
We don't know what it is.
But it's a long, cylindrical object.
And I asked myself this, if we're actually living in a simulation, suppose this reality is just a simulation, and it wanted to send you a message, kind of some foreshadowing, how would it send you, if we are a simulation, how would it send you the message that your planet is screwed?
Well, I don't know.
Probably not in words, because that would be creepy.
So they'd probably have to send you a sign.
So one way to do it would be to send a long cylindrical object to penetrate Mother Earth in a place in Alaska, near Alaska, called, and I'm not making this up, Cumtown.
C-U-M-T-O-W-N.
Yeah, they brought it down in Cumtown.
All the way down in Cumtown.
That's how I'd do it.
If I were in charge of the simulation and I wanted to tell you, your planet is totally screwed, I'd send that long cylindrical object to penetrate Mother Earth and come down.
That's how I'd do it.
Now, there's no word on which members of the military are going to retrieve the wreckage, but I'm guessing seamen.
Seamen.
I think they're going to send the seamen to get the wreckage and come down.
All right, so Kirby was asked, Kirby, you know, Biden's guy, why did they bring this one down when they didn't bring the other one down?
And he gave a good reason.
I didn't think to be a good reason.
You know, I thought it was going to be, oh, we had to shoot this one down so it didn't look bad politically.
I thought it was going to be some political reason, right?
Some like BS political reason.
But it turns out there's a very good logical reason why they shot this one down soon, whereas the other one they waited.
And it's the size of the payload.
Because the other one was three buses.
And if you drop three buses on a huge barren area in the United States, it's going to have a lot of debris field.
But if you take something down over a huge unpopulated area in the United States that's the size of a car, not as much debris.
Totally convincing reason.
No, a payload meaning just the structure that's attached to it.
That's maybe the worst reason I've ever heard.
Because from the perspective of the entire United States, the difference in debris field between three buses and one car is not really significant.
Not really significant.
So we know that we're being lied to, but maybe just for political purposes.
And here's my next question.
How many of these things have been flying around all the time?
Do you think it's a coincidence whether we found one to shoot down just when Biden needed to look tough?
Oh, at the exact time that Biden wanted to look like he could be decisive, there it was!
Right over Alaska, right where he wanted it to be.
So how lucky that he got a do-over.
How lucky, really.
Or was it?
Now of course on Twitter people are posting videos of other UFOs that look just like it.
I'm not sure I would believe any of the other videos that look just like it.
Those cylindrical objects.
But I will just note that there are a lot of videos of said objects on Twitter.
I'm not sure I believe any of it.
So what are you to make of this?
How many of you think it's an alien object?
Raise your hands.
Alien from another planet?
Oh, dammit, nobody believes it.
Oh, one.
Okay.
Well, I was hoping that we would be far more accepting of this.
How about a weather balloon?
Who's going to go with weather balloon?
Anybody?
Weather balloon?
Apparently, it could not navigate was unmanned and did not have sensors on it.
Yeah, maybe, maybe weather balloon.
Now here's a question for you, and I don't know the answer to this question.
If you were to take an object like, let's say a parachute, and let's say that parachute, you know, got lifted up in a heavy wind, a hurricane or something.
Is it possible for any natural object To come from the ground and then just float around in space for a long period of time?
Can that ever happen?
Just based on air currents alone?
No?
Because, yeah, I've seen, haven't you seen plastic trash bags that are flying around for a while?
Your ego.
Haven't we all seen plastic trash bags flying around and it seems like they shouldn't stay up there?
Not at 40,000 feet?
Why not?
Why not?
I would think at 40,000 feet it would be more likely, because there'd be greater wind.
I'm seeing some people say yes, but most of you say no.
Depends on the density.
I don't know.
Maybe.
Maybe.
Could a weather balloon survive at 40,000?
Probably.
Scott is McWest.
All right, well, we don't know the answer to that.
Let's talk about John Fetterman, Senator Fetterman.
So the New York Times is reporting that he might have some permanent mental problems because of his stroke, in part because maybe he didn't rest when he should have.
Instead, he campaigned.
What do you think of that?
Do you think Fetterman permanently disabled himself by campaigning?
Possibly.
Possibly.
And do you want a senator who would make that bad of a decision?
Well, he would have made the decision while he was disabled, right?
Because we don't know the quality of his thinking at that point.
So it looks like, as Glenn Greenwald points out, that once again, for the third time in a row, the corporate news has lied to us to change the results of an election.
So you got Hunter's laptop, You've got the Russia collusion.
And you've got now the Fetterman.
Oh, Fetterman's fine.
He'll be fine.
So that's three cases where the corporate news apparently, and this would be Greenwald's take, apparently lied to you intentionally to change the results of the election.
That's so ordinary now, it doesn't even shock me, does it?
We're all just like so beaten down by it.
We're all like abused spouses at this point.
You don't know why we won't leave.
You just get used to anything.
I mean, once you get used to it, you're like, well, yeah, they do that.
It's been happening for decades?
Probably yes.
And I remember that reporter who got attacked for reporting, honestly, that he didn't seem to be able to communicate.
Okay.
And everybody said, no, you bad reporter.
You're not supposed to say you honestly think he couldn't communicate with you when you talk to him.
All right.
There's not much to say about that.
All right, Project Veritas.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but we still don't know exactly why James O'Keefe was put on paid leave by the board of Project Veritas, right?
Is that still true that we don't know?
Why?
All right.
Let me ask you this.
How many believe that he showed a video that proves that Pfizer is conducting gain-of-function research?
How many of you believe that's your movie?
In your movie, is this a true statement?
That the undercover video proves that Pfizer was involved with gain-of-function?
Oh, interesting.
You're all saying no, but some are saying yup.
Some say yes, some say no.
How could we all watch the same stuff and some of you think it was proven and some think it wasn't?
I have a hypothesis for what the drama is all about.
You ready for this?
This is just speculation.
This is rank speculation.
So you shouldn't put too much credibility on it.
But it goes like this.
Let me get a fact check from you.
Did James O'Keefe present this video as evidence slash proof that Pfizer is doing, or was interested in, gain-of-function research?
Did he present it as them doing gain-of-function research?
Now look at your answers.
There's some yes, some no.
I thought yes.
I thought it was presented In a way that you were supposed to interpret it as gain-of-function research.
Now, most of you said that that wasn't on the video.
Right?
So I saw most of you say that the video didn't say that, but many of you are saying that he claims it says that.
Would that be grounds for the board to remove him?
Because I gotta think Pfizer's coming after all of them with lawyers.
You don't think the board of Project Veritas Has some lawyers saying, okay, your guy is making this claim.
The video he's using for his evidence doesn't support that claim.
You're just making up a thing and accusing us of it, when the video you showed doesn't support the claim.
If you were the board, would you remove James O'Keefe over that?
I would.
I would.
If I were the board of Project Veritas, I would have removed him immediately.
You know why?
Because I wouldn't want to be associated with a huge legal liability to Pfizer.
Now, I know what you're going to say, because I've been here before.
I know you're going to say, Pfizer's paying me.
No.
Pfizer's not paying me.
No.
Or you're going to say I'm a secret Democrat and I hate Project Veritas.
No.
I think they do useful stuff.
I'd like to see more of it.
But I would have removed him based on only what I know.
Right?
Just based on what I know, just watching the video and watching his claims, I think I would have removed him.
Now, that also destroys Project Veritas, does it not?
I would have destroyed Project Veritas over that.
That's how I would have done it.
Anybody else?
Who else if they were on the board would have fired him and destroyed Project Veritas over this?
I would have.
Now keep in mind we're wildly speculating.
So my assumption is that we're not accurate.
We're not accurate about what's going on there.
There might be all kinds of things we've never heard of.
So I wouldn't take my speculation to be very important.
But I can tell you as clearly as I can that I would have removed him if I were on the board, just over what I've seen.
But that's just me.
Your mileage might differ.
Now, have I demonstrated to your satisfaction that I don't do this for money?
Could this be more obvious at this point?
Because you know that I know That my audience wants me to support him, right?
That's what you want.
You want me to support him.
And I know that I'm going to lose audience because I said that.
But I'm going to do it anyway, because it's obvious.
And it would be stupid, frankly, to have a different opinion.
I mean, it's right there in front of you.
There's nothing to question.
Anyway, what I saw in the Pfizer video was a Dilbert situation in which, here's how I imagine the meeting went.
Again, pure speculation.
So this is based on my Dilbert filter on business, and I imagine the Pfizer meeting that the undercover video referenced.
So the thing we know is that somebody brought up gain-of-function research in a meeting.
That's all we know.
The second thing we know is that the executive who talked about it on the undercover video was not in favor of it.
Why would we assume anybody else was in favor of it?
Why would you make the assumption that anybody was in favor of it?
That would be unsupportive.
Here's how I imagine the meeting, all right?
Imagine a typical boss, and then imagine typical engineers and scientists.
It's just typical business people in a meeting.
What does the boss say?
This would be a typical boss thing, right?
All right, we have to be ready for the next variant.
Would a boss say that?
Do you think a boss would ever say, hey, we've got to be really ready for the next variant to make the next so-called vaccination?
Yes, yes.
The most obvious thing a boss would say is we have to be ready for the next one.
So he tells his staff, all right, these are your orders.
You've got to be ready for the next one.
Now, what do the scientists say?
It's a typical meeting in a typical Dilbert company.
The boss says you have to be ready for the next variant.
What does the scientist say?
There's only one thing that scientist says in that situation.
Sure, if you want to do gain-of-function research, we could be ready.
Right?
And would that scientist be recommending gain-of-function research in that context?
Maybe.
Maybe.
But maybe it was just the response to a stupid boss.
There's only one way we could get ready for the unknown, which is we would have to simulate the unknown, prepare for it based on the simulation, and then maybe we have a chance.
But if we don't do gain-of-function research, stop asking us to be ready for something that's unknown.
That would be the most typical business conversation in the world.
Now, here's another way it could have gone.
And again, wild speculation.
This is just something I would have said.
If you put me in that meeting, here's what I would have said.
I would have said, all right, there's no way to be ready for the future without gain-of-function research.
And we know that gain-of-function research is the most dangerous thing you could ever do.
Right?
So far, everybody would agree with that.
Sounds like.
And then I would say, but.
Is there no way to do gain-of-function research?
Is there really no way, or was it obvious that the Wuhan lab did it the wrong way?
For example, the Wuhan lab, correct me if I'm wrong, at the end of the shift, people went home, right?
They went from their dangerous biological lab to their house.
Every single night, all of the employees in this dangerous place, yeah, maybe they showered, but the cleaning crew, everybody just goes home.
Now, I would say, this is what I would have said in the meeting.
All right, so obviously we would never do that.
But suppose, just suppose, speculate, we created a locked down, top secret place where only things could come in and nothing could leave.
Nothing could leave.
It's just a secure location away from everything.
So you can, you know, airdrop supplies and stuff.
And even the garbage wouldn't leave.
Even the garbage would stay somewhere locally, no matter how much there was.
So nothing would leave, including the people.
But, when they were done, and a person wanted to leave, they would be taken to a neighboring place, where they're not near the lab stuff, but they're nearby, also secluded.
They would stay there for one month, testing themselves.
Wouldn't even be a doctor there.
Testing themselves for the whole month, and after one month of being alone, then they're released back.
So then I say to my boss, alright, if we worked with the government, and we got all the approvals, And we did it in a way that literally nobody could leave without being completely safe.
Would we be okay with that?
Because this is such a dangerous situation that we have to get ahead of this next variant.
Would that be irresponsible?
Not as a brainstorming idea, it wouldn't.
You float an idea like that to see what people think is wrong with it.
That's how it works.
You don't float an idea and say, we're done.
You put it out there, and then people say, no, that's still too scary.
I'd rather take the chance.
Blah, blah, blah, blah.
There is no indication in the Pfizer undercover video that they were serious about doing it.
There's only indication somebody mentioned it.
And I would have mentioned it.
If you put me in that meeting, I would have mentioned it.
Because it's the obvious thing to bring up.
You might want to rule it out.
Probably would have.
I probably would have ruled it down.
But I would have mentioned it.
Because you have to look at all the options.
Alright, there we go.
Sunshine Felder.
Stop helping them.
Oh my goodness!
It is so hard not to use profanity.
I want to go off on you so hard right now.
Because I think you're the symptom of everything that's wrong with the world.
You're completely offended that I would give cover to somebody who you don't like.
I'm going to give cover to everybody you don't like, not just Pfizer.
If you've watched me long enough, you know I always take the defend the most guilty person or a guilty looking person.
You know I always argue the other side.
If you can't deal with that, you are not intellectually capable If you don't understand that both sides of issues are worth looking at, you need to go back to where the NPCs hang out.
The actual people with brains and minds and stuff, they can talk about both sides of issues.
The rest of you, maybe you need to be somewhere else.
So, honestly, this isn't the place for you.
All right.
Let's talk about the New York Times is going after Kamala Harris pretty hard.
So apparently the New York Times did some research and they talked to dozens of Democrats in the White House and on Capitol Hill.
And pretty much they all seem to have the same opinion, according to the New York Times, that Kamala Harris has not risen to the challenge.
Has not risen to the challenge.
And they didn't even quote any Republicans in their story.
So it was a completely negative story about Kamala Harris, and they didn't even need to talk to a Republican.
They got dozens of people to say negative things, all on her team.
Now, is there any chance she's going to be the Vice President?
What do you think?
Any chance?
Here's the problem, though.
When you see that she's completely incompetent, your automatic common sense goes to, then obviously, the replacer.
Here's the argument for why they won't.
I'm going to go with won't replace her.
Here's why.
You would never be able to find somebody less capable than Joe Biden, no matter how hard you looked.
She's the only person less capable than Joe Biden.
And that's the number one requirement.
Number one requirement is you can't be more impressive than the top of the ticket.
And Joe Biden brings down that level so long.
And this is not a joke.
This is not a joke.
This is the actual way it works.
The president has to be more impressive than the vice president.
Period.
No exceptions.
You're not going to see anybody violate that rule.
Who in the world Besides Kamala Harris, would everybody agree, everybody, both Democrats and Republicans, everybody agree she's even less capable than he is?
Can you even imagine anybody else in national politics who would fit that bill?
Nobody.
Fetterman.
Yeah, Fetterman's the funny answer, but...
You're right.
You're right.
He'd be the one person who would fit that target.
But he's sort of white and male, and that's not going to work.
So find somebody who's a person of color, female, and less capable than Joe Biden.
Pretty hard.
Pretty hard to do.
So I'm going to predict that the principle of vice president has to be worse than the president.
If Biden continues to run, and I'm going to say he will.
Let's see your opinions.
I say Biden will run.
Go.
What do you say?
Because he's president, he wants to.
That's probably all that matters.
Mostly yeses.
We could be surprised.
Would you be surprised if he didn't?
I wouldn't be surprised, but my prediction is he'll run.
And the reason I think he'll run is that he beat Trump once.
So I think they're going to beat, and they also say that, you know, the Democrats believe Biden's done an unusually good job on the economy because they can lie with numbers.
They just show you misleading numbers and the Democrats think everything's going great.
So, anyway, we'll keep watching that, but I don't think she's going anywhere.
All right, here's a question I asked.
If your country was being attacked, let's say you're a Ukrainian.
You're a Ukrainian citizen and you see a Russian soldier that you know is a Russian soldier and he's attacking your country.
Can you kill that soldier?
Is that legal?
Because I don't know.
So a civilian can kill a An invading soldier who they just happened to see walking across their field, right?
If they captured him, suppose they captured him, could they kill him?
What if it were easy to capture him, but they decided to kill him?
Would that be illegal?
Because that would be a war crime, but it's a war crime, but they're not soldiers.
So if a non-soldier kills you, is that illegal?
Now that's Ukraine, so I don't know what the rules are there.
Suppose it's America.
Let's move from Ukraine, we're in America.
Let's say America is invaded by a foreign force, and you see one of their members.
Can you kill that person?
What do you think?
If you're actually being invaded by a force, you can't kill them?
Look how unsure you are.
Isn't it weird that you're unsure?
Because I'm unsure as well.
I don't know the answer to that.
Let's say they're not in uniform, but it's an invading force that doesn't wear uniforms.
Let's say it's a force that doesn't wear uniforms.
What are you going to do?
You can't kill anybody because nobody's in a uniform.
Now, have we not declared that the cartels are a terrorist organization?
Now I don't think it's official, right?
Congress hasn't official, but it's been proposed that the cartels are a terrorist organization.
Now let me change it from invading force to a terrorist.
Let's say you spot a terrorist that you know is a terrorist, somehow you know.
You know they're a terrorist.
Can you kill them?
Or do you have to call the police?
Let's say they're not in the act of doing a terrorist thing.
Oh, actually, let's say they are.
Let's say you see them actively preparing for, but, you know, they're not quite at the moment of, you know, the bomb goes off, but you see them actively preparing, and you know that if you alerted authorities, there might not be time for the authorities to respond.
But they're not quite pushing the button yet, but they're preparing the bomb, They're putting it in their van and they're heading toward where they're gonna go.
But let's say you catch them somehow.
You're just a civilian.
Can you kill them?
Can you kill them?
A terrorist.
A known terrorist who's going to blow up a building and kill people.
Can you kill them?
Because they're not doing it yet.
They're not doing it yet.
I don't think you can.
I think the answer is no.
I think the answer is no.
That would be murder, I think.
So here's what we need.
We need a little clarity.
It's fairly clear that our government is not protecting us from the cartel.
Would you all agree with that?
Your government is not protecting you from the cartel.
At what point does your Second Amendment kick in and you can just start killing everybody who sells fentanyl, whether they're American or not?
Because even an American who sells fentanyl that came across the border is working with the cartels.
They were working either directly or indirectly with the cartels.
That would put them on the other side of the war.
Now, if we agree that it's terrorism, and I were to just... Let's say there was a fentanyl house on my block, and I got all the dads with their ARs, and we surrounded it one day, and we just lit it up.
Just killed everybody inside.
And the police come and they arrest us, of course.
And then they look inside and they see it's all cartel members.
Is that a crime?
Because the cartel members who are getting ready to sell fentanyl are mass murderers.
They are killing Americans.
They're just getting ready to do it, and there's no doubt that they're going to do it.
There's no question of what happens next.
If there are people who sell fentanyl and they've got a big batch in there, they're going to sell it.
People are going to die.
There's no question about what happens.
That's easy to know.
You can't murder them or kill them.
It wouldn't be murder in my town.
Well, here's the problem.
We're going to be there.
We'd better figure this out.
Because the government seems to have no will to handle this, and there will be a point where Americans decide to do it themselves.
We're not right there, but we're heading toward there at 65 miles an hour.
We're approaching a point where somebody with an AR is going to wipe out a bunch of cartel-suspected people.
And then here's the part that's fun.
Put me on the jury.
Put me on the jury.
No way, no way.
I'm not even going to listen to the evidence.
I won't even listen to the evidence.
And I'll tell you that up front.
Nope, not going to listen to the evidence.
If they took out cartel members, self-defense, end of story.
I don't even care what they were doing.
I don't even care if there were family members in the house.
Don't care.
Don't care if there was collateral damage.
Nope.
Don't care.
They would get off.
And I would like Every American to make the same commitment.
That if an American kills a member of the cartel, or anybody dealing fentanyl, that you would promise that if you're on a jury, you would not convict them.
Under any circumstance.
No matter what law they broke.
Because your government has abandoned you on fentanyl.
Let's be clear.
The government has abandoned you.
I do not recommend vigilantism.
I oppose it.
I do not recommend it.
But it's probably going to happen.
And here's what I do recommend.
If it happens, don't put them in jail.
If they kill cartel members, even maybe if they have some collateral damage, I would go that far.
Because it is a war, and your government's not protecting you.
You do have a right to protect yourself.
You do have that right.
It's just not legal at the moment.
But you have the right.
Because the right is independent of the law.
This is one of those cases where it wouldn't really matter what the law says.
Your right to protect yourself is unassailable.
It doesn't matter what law anybody has.
It doesn't matter what your constitution says.
You can protect yourself and your family, period.
We all agree, right?
That's not a conversation to have.
So I'm just going to promise that if you put me on a jury trial for somebody who murdered a member of a cartel, I will not vote, under any circumstance, I will not vote guilty.
Now, of course, this guarantees I will not be on a jury trial.
Am I right?
No attorney would allow me on the trial.
But you should do the same.
All it takes is you just tweet that you would not convict anybody for killing a cartel member or a fentanyl dealer.
Don't recommend it.
This is very important.
Do not recommend it.
And by the way, I'm sure you know by now that this live stream has been demonetized.
You can't even talk about this topic without getting demonetized.
So I'm doing this for free.
Working for free today.
As I did the other day when I mentioned vigilantism.
That's immediate demonetization.
It's very expensive.
It's very expensive to say something that's useful and true.
Very expensive.
But, shouldn't have killed my son-in-law.
Or my stepson.
So, if they hadn't killed my stepson, I'd probably shut up about this.
But, hey, I didn't start it.
I didn't start the fight, but if any of you vote to convict somebody who kills a fentanyl dealer, you've got a lot of explaining to do.
You have a lot of explaining to do.
Because, well, I don't have to say anything about that.
Alright, I don't see anybody disagreeing with me.
I didn't see anybody disagree with me.
Is there anybody who would disagree with the jury idea of not convicting them?
Anybody against that?
I think you're all on the same page.
See, this is what's so remarkable about this situation.
It's remarkable in that the public is all on the same page, and the government won't act.
The only possible reason for that is that they're already bought off.
Oh, excuse me for a second.
I'm going to take off my microphones to bring my whiteboard over here.
Hold on. Hold on.
Hold on. All right. Back in action.
So here's the thing I worry about.
And worry is the wrong word, because this is a fact.
So what I'm going to show you isn't speculation.
This is the way everything has to go.
Let's say you're a cartel and you want to sell some stuff in the United States.
If you're only doing it on a small scale and there's not much harm yet, the only thing you have to bribe is maybe some Maybe a police officer in a small town.
Maybe that's the only bribery you need.
Because you're not doing much harm yet.
But, as your harm increases and you're selling more fentanyl and you're killing tens of thousands of Americans every year, the only way you're going to get away with that is to increase your bribery and your control.
So you're going to have to bribe your way up from local police officers to maybe, you know, council people, To maybe state senators, to maybe Congress.
The bigger fentanyl gets, the more they're going to have to bribe to stay in business.
At some point, they have to control Congress, or go out of business.
Because the cartels have to either grow or die.
Just like any business.
Every business has to either grow or shrink.
Nothing ever stays the same for years and years.
Everything grows or shrinks.
The cartels have to grow.
They have to grow to be competitive with the other cartels.
They have to grow to be competitive with the Mexican government should it ever become less corrupt.
They have to increase their power all the time because they're increasing their harm.
So the will to fight them is going up with the harm.
And they have to work against the will to fight them through bribery because they don't have an army, per se, not a standing army.
So it is inevitable that if we don't deal with them, they will own Congress eventually.
Why is Congress not acting?
Yeah, you could say they have standing armies.
I'll give you that.
Why is Congress not acting in the most obvious way, which is to go directly after the cartels?
There's only one reason I can think of.
That we're already here.
That's the only reason I can think of.
Because the debate doesn't really make sense or it's not happening.
It's not like there's even a debate on it.
There's something going on and I can't think of anything else it would be.
So your best case scenario is that we're not there yet.
But if we don't hurry, There's only one way this can go.
They will sell more fentanyl, more harm.
They will have to bribe higher and higher officials to stay in business, otherwise we'll send the military.
Eventually, they have to own Congress.
They would have to do it as a business strategy.
They don't have a choice.
They have to own Congress or go out of business.
It's also them.
It just doesn't seem like it because you're probably still down here somewhere.
But they have to get to that point.
They can't survive unless they take over the American lawmakers.
Has anybody ever explained that to you before?
Is it the first time you're learning that it is a fight to the death?
The fight with the cartels is to the death.
Or control.
Not to death, I suppose.
They either will control us or we will destroy them.
They have no other options.
In the long run.
In the short run, they do their business as usual and try to grow.
In the long run, it's us or them.
Never heard of that before, did you?
Yeah.
If you doubt it, just look at Mexico.
The cartels had to take over the entire Mexican government.
They had to.
So they did.
So they did.
They have to take over the American government.
They have to.
Maybe they already have.
Maybe they already have.
I don't know.
It's possible.
I mean, the evidence would suggest they have.
There's more evidence that they have than that they haven't.
Now, it could be that it's only indirectly, because nobody wants to, you know, nobody wants to be the target.
So it could be that.
All right, well, that's where we're at.
But I'd rather talk about UFOs going down and come down.
That's the fun story.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, this concludes my prepared remarks.
I'm going to say goodbye to the YouTubers and then talk to my beloved community locals.