Episode 2202 Scott Adams: Wild Day In News & Opinion And I'm Here To Show You The Machinery. Coffee!
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, San Francisco, Doom Loop Walking Tour, Elon Musk, Newspaper Decline, Peter Zeihan, Iran Nuclear, RFK Jr. Policies, Open Border, VP Harris, Amazon KDP Life Ban, Jeff Bezos, Mike Cernovich, Genocide Watch, President Trump Power Stare, Rupar Videos, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of civilization, sometimes with proper lighting.
There we go, just right.
If you'd like to take this experience, which is going to be amazing just by itself, but if you want to take this to levels that nobody's ever understood or heard or could even speak of, there's no words to explain it.
All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank of chalicestine, 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.
It happens now.
Go.
You did that well.
I think that was your best sip.
Good job.
Well, I don't know where to begin.
There's so many weird and interesting stories today that I didn't even get to check the news.
And I'll talk about that.
The news without the news.
All right, well, I like to start with interesting stories before we get to the big meat.
So there's a tour group that gives tours of San Francisco.
How would you like to be a tour group?
Or how would you like to be a business whose job it was to give tours of San Francisco?
Well, apparently they're capitalizing on the situation and they're now giving a tour that they call the Doom Loop Walking Tour.
And it's a tongue-in-cheek ad, but it says, you've read the headlines, you've seen the tweets, now get close and personal to the doom and squalor of downtown San Francisco.
Discover the policy choices that made America's wealthiest city the nation's innovative leader of housing crisis, addiction.
So apparently, here's the funny part, the tours are booked.
They're fully booked.
There's all these people who want to see the doom loop of a city in complete disarray and decline.
Now, if there's one thing I love about America, there's more than one thing.
But one thing I love about America is that we've never heard of a problem we can't make money on.
You name it.
If something's going wrong, there's one of us bastards who's figuring out how to make a buck on it.
And I'm sure that that's what keeps the entire system working, is that the dumbest, most unproductive things in the world can be going on, and somebody's gonna be sitting off, you know, just off the sidelines saying, I think I can make this work.
I think I can build a business model around this.
Free market for the win.
Speaking of the free market, Elon Musk tweeted that he actually put newspapers in quote.
He goes, newspapers, just search the internet, particularly this platform and print it out.
Wow.
You know, there used to be a good reason to read newspapers.
Does anybody remember when newspapers had a comic called, what was it called?
It was called Dilbert.
Dilbert.
It used to be in these paper things called newspapers.
And they would be sent to people, like physically to their homes and stuff.
And then they would try to read them and they would get, like their hands would be filled with all kind of weird ink and crap.
And after you read it, you couldn't talk, you couldn't touch your food.
Did you ever try to read a newspaper and eat toast at the same time?
No, you can't do it.
Because your toast is going to taste like newspaper ink.
Right?
Now, I might have a bad attitude about newspapers at the moment.
I might have a little bias.
A little bit.
The funniest question I get from trolls online is that the trolls like to come into my tweets and say something about how sad I must be that I got cancelled by newspapers.
Who would want to be associated with newspapers?
Can you raise your hand?
Is there anybody here who, have you ever gone on a date and lied that you work for the newspaper business?
Try to impress your date?
It's like, I don't want her to hear that I'm a quality assurance person at a big corporation.
I'm going to make up some kind of sexy job.
Astronaut?
No, no, she'd catch me.
Ah, newspaper reporter.
Newspaper writer.
Yeah.
Because you'd like to feel good about yourself.
Because you work for a newspaper.
Well, I was also watching some YouTube clips from Peter Zayan.
My God, that guy's interesting.
Now, I do not know if Peter Zayan has, you know, amazingly good insights about everything geopolitical or not.
I mean, I really can't tell what's true and what's not.
But I'll tell you, his content is interesting from beginning to end.
So, you know, use your adult filters to, you know, put yourself in the head of nobody knows the future.
Can we agree that nobody knows the future?
But he says interesting things.
I'm going to share a few with you.
First of all, I need a fact check on this because as Elon Musk says, the newspapers, but also the regular news, they don't have regular news gathering assets.
So they're trying to sell opinion as news.
So when actual news drops, sometimes you can't find it anywhere.
Because it's not opinion, it's actual news.
But can you give me a confirmation?
So I haven't seen this in any news, so-called news, that we're working on a deal with Iran?
And that it's looking good?
Have you heard that?
I can't even tell if it was a new video.
Why did I completely miss that in reading the news every single day, several times a day?
And I never saw it?
I don't know why.
I guess it's because, as Elon Musk says, the newspapers are not real news and the regular news isn't real news.
And by the way, that was another thing that Peter Zeon described.
He described the evolution from having robust news bureaus in other countries to what we have now, which is people writing opinions and then other people writing opinions about the other people's opinions.
We're selling it as news because it comes out on the legacy platforms that you used to think were news.
So it makes you think that news is happening, but there hasn't been news in a long time.
And news went away a long time ago.
It's just opinions about opinions.
So anyway, but if Peter Zahn is correct, It would look like the broad strokes of the deal would have something about the U.S.
having, or the international community, the U.N.
having more access to checking out Iran's nuclear situation.
And apparently they're going to agree to that.
And one of the surprises is, now this is from Peter Zahn, one of the surprises is when Iran recently was re-inspected, is that the uranium that they were Processing up to nuclear grade, they actually started going in the other direction.
They took half of what they had up to like 90% and half of it they've already downgraded it to enrichment is the right word.
So they've unenriched it, if that's a thing.
So it's less likely to become a weapon.
So it's beginning to look like Iran either didn't need that much or maybe they weren't so dead set on building a nuclear weapon.
But I guess part of the deal is they would allow more inspections.
They would get six billion dollars of their own money back or somebody else's money.
It wasn't our money.
But the background on this is that the Russian sanctions In an indirect way that he can explain but I can't at the moment.
In an indirect way it hurt Iran.
So Iran apparently is just dying for cash.
They're just broke.
And so Biden may have accidentally done more harm to Iran's economy than Trump did.
But not because he was trying, but because he, you know, the Ukraine war had a side impact on Iran, which is pretty devastating.
So that made an opportunity for a deal, because Iran was more desperate than they have been.
Now this is Peter Zan's take.
I don't know, you know, I'm not there, so I don't have any counterclaims to bounce against it.
But the idea is that Iran might be flexible about nuclear stuff.
And if Zeyan is right, Benjamin Netanyahu, head of Israel, says that they're looking at a deal that he can live with.
So there might actually be something going on.
That's entirely positive for everybody, meaning that the Middle East would get back into some kind of balance.
I believe part of the deal is that Iran would stop funding attacks against Saudi Arabia and some of their neighbors.
So you would get fewer funding, less funding of proxy attacks.
We'd get some prisoners back.
I guess some drug dealers were in prison.
They would get $6 billion of their own or somebody else's money that had been held up.
But it wasn't our money.
And then we would get access to their nuclear inspections.
Now, the fact that maybe Netanyahu could live with it?
Now, put two things together.
Two things.
Start with the Abraham Accords.
The Abraham Accords got a lot of the players on the same team, at least economically, and on paper.
But Iran was specifically carved out as somebody you couldn't deal with at the moment.
But that caused a problem because Iran is a funder of proxy wars and you know they're the big problem over there.
So it looks like we're heading toward, don't get too excited, But, you know, the chatter is that Saudi Arabia might be willing to recognize Israel, which I think might be a separate conversation, but I can easily see them folded together.
So Saudi Arabia might get relief from the proxy wars, is it the Hutus and the whoever's, that were attacking Saudi and Saudi interests, Yemen.
So the Yemen thing might get some relief, at least in the funding sense.
Relief, meaning they're not funded to attack anybody anymore.
And that would create the hope would be some balance in the Middle East sufficient that we don't need to be involved.
We the United States.
And that might be amazing.
We might be right on the cusp Of two administrations doing the right thing, in one case maybe a little bit accidentally, but, you know, taking advantage of it.
We might be seeing something like a gigantic two administration, because I think you'd have to include both, two administration achievement that would be kind of amazing.
Kind of amazing.
The Hutus or Rwandans?
Okay, I don't know my, assume everything I said about That area is wrong.
So it's Yemen.
What are the two groups in Yemen?
The two warring groups in Yemen are the who's and the who's?
I'm on the wrong continent.
I only got the wrong continent.
The hoodies?
All right, well, somebody's fighting over there.
Anyway, so that might be good.
We'll see.
But the other thing that Peter Zahn said is that, I hadn't heard this before, that the primary reason for Russia's, let's say, aggressiveness against his neighbors, and I've never heard this before.
Now, you'd always heard that it was maybe defensive and maybe it was building up his empire to get it back to where it was.
But you know, everything that you hear in the United States Through the regular news about Russia and Russia's intentions and Putin's intentions.
That's all fake.
You know that, right?
Like anything about Putin's intentions, that's all fake propaganda bullshit, right?
So you, but Peter Zan has a take, and it goes like this, and I don't know if I believe it.
So I feel like There's probably a lot more to it.
Yeah, you've heard it's about warm water ports.
Here's his take.
That the topography of Russia and the surrounding countries that are, you know, between it and Europe proper, The topography is really disadvantageous for defense.
Meaning that if somebody were to attack Russia, prior to Russia being aggressive and taking Crimea and Georgia and all those things, there were some easy attack points that the homeland of Russia would be vulnerable to.
But, in the old days, under the Soviet Union, they had controlled enough territory that they could control choke points.
So there are some choke points that if you controlled them militarily, it would be very difficult for an army to attack Russia.
If you don't attack them, apparently it's kind of easy on the ground.
So the thinking is that even if Putin left tomorrow, The other senior people who are his people, would have exactly the same policy, because they all see it as an existential risk to Russia, whether soon or in the next thousand years.
In other words, they're looking for a permanent security situation for Russia.
Now, have you ever seen that reported in regular news?
I read a lot of news about Ukraine.
I've never seen that before, have you?
How many of you have never heard that before, other from Peter Zan?
So some of you have.
A lot of you have.
Interesting.
Alright, well good for you.
I've said this a lot, this is the, I think, the most informed and smartest audience in politics.
Because you actually are engaged in trying to figure out how to figure out.
Which is way more important than figuring out what the news said.
Yeah, this is a group of people who are very actively trying to figure out, how are they lying to us?
And if they are lying, how can we figure it out?
And what do they tell us for lying and stuff?
So, well, so I'm impressed.
I'm impressed.
That's such a basic thing that you should need to know about the Ukraine war.
Now here's the part that I'm going to disagree with Peter Zayin.
He says that the war can't end unless one of them just has a convincing victory, and that's unlikely.
So that if Ukraine doesn't outright win, and pretty much demolish Russia as a major power, or Putin somehow magically win, if that doesn't happen, the war will just go on forever.
But what I hear is the opposite.
What I hear, if it's true, that their primary interest is the choke points, how could you not have a way to negotiate that?
That feels like the easiest thing to negotiate.
Now, that doesn't mean you necessarily say, oh, these choke points can belong to you.
But it definitely tells you that if you've got something called NATO, don't expect them to give up on the choke points.
I mean, you'd have to look at the whole situation, right?
Like how about the whole trade economic situation?
How about the entire Russia-China connection?
You'd want to loosen that?
Maybe get Russia into the European or American domain a little bit more.
So to me the fact that we understand what the Russians want, or at least I do, maybe for the first time I understand that element, that usually gives you something to negotiate.
The times when you can't negotiate is when two sides want the same thing, and there's only one of the same thing.
This is a situation where Russia wants something unique to Russia, And other people want their own things, like their own security, etc.
But they're different things.
And I would say, as a general negotiation fact, that when people want the same one thing, you've got a problem.
You know that statue?
I own that.
No, I own it.
Where are you going to go with that?
You can't have half a statue.
But if you've got a situation where what the Russians need is a specific geographic or defensive power, there's probably a number of ways to get to that.
And it's unique to them.
So in other words, you don't have to give up something of your own too much, necessarily, to give them what they want.
And that usually suggests a deal could be made.
So I still think you could.
RFK Jr.
said two of the most surprising things you'll ever hear from a Democrat.
Number one, Trump was right.
He was wrong.
The wall is needed.
Boom.
Now when he says carefully, I don't mean physically a wall the whole way, but also Trump didn't really mean that either.
He means whatever it takes to close the border.
He calls the border completely open.
And he tells a story that's associated with his documentary he did.
He spent a lot of time interviewing people there.
And I heard a story from him.
This was on Tucker's interview.
I heard a story from RFK Jr.
that I'd never heard.
Apparently, we always knew the cartels were managing the illegal flow of immigration.
We didn't know.
Well, I didn't know.
So again, this might be something you already knew.
I didn't know that their operation, the cartel operation, had spread globally To the point where almost all of the immigrants are not from Central America or Mexico.
Almost all of them are from Africa, everywhere else, China.
And he pointed out that the vast majority of them are military age men, but he's not saying it's a military operation.
He's just saying that's, if you were to look at them, that would be the description.
They're young men.
But they're coming from, you know, Africa, they're coming from China, they're coming from any place they can get out of.
Now, and apparently, this system is built to look like we have a system, but it's a fake system.
It's really designed to let everybody in.
And here's what that means.
If you come in the, let's say, the legal way where the government is, you know, checking your fingerprints and giving you a court date, your court date is in seven years.
You have seven years to live in this country completely legally.
Now, you're not a citizen, but you're completely legal because you've checked in.
Do you think that in seven years they're going to be sent back?
Do you think there's a court in America seven years from now who's going to say, well, you've been living and working here for seven years and you've committed no crimes, let's say.
Do you think that we're going to send them back?
Of course not.
No, we do have an open border.
And even RFK Jr., a Democrat, says it clearly.
This is an open border.
And he's basically saying that the news has been kept from you.
Not only has the news been kept from us, but even from the right.
I would say that I have not seen any right-leaning publication That might be on me.
I mean, it probably isn't Breitbart.
Actually, Breitbart's good on the border.
So Breitbart probably has covered this.
But I haven't seen it on Fox News that 98% of the people coming in are not from Central and South America.
And Kamala Harris says that all worked out, right?
So Kamala Harris is working on Central America and that's not even the problem?
It doesn't look like incompetence, does it?
Would you agree?
That whatever's going on, it doesn't look like incompetence.
It looks like some kind of a very determined effort to just let everybody in.
And it's hard for me to imagine what the positive outcome of that is.
Because the cities are gone.
The cities are destroyed.
Are you telling me the Democrats were trying to destroy the Democrat cities?
Or is it only because the Republican governors cleverly shipped their people to the blue cities and thwarted their plan?
I don't know what's going on.
To me it doesn't look like a clever plan.
Like, I don't see the clever way that the Democrats are using immigration as a secret tool to accomplish their what?
Do they really think they're going to get extra votes?
I don't think so.
I think that these immigrants are being shipped into cities where they're being shipped into the filth and crime that they were trying to escape.
And they're probably saying to themselves the same thing everybody else is.
What can we do about this?
Because I would like less crime and filth in my own city where I'm living for seven years at least.
And they're probably going to say, is there anybody who's offering to take care of it?
You know, like a Republican, for example.
I would definitely vote, I would bet against immigration turning the country more liberal.
Do you think?
Let me do a mental, just a mental test for you.
Imagine a busload, the cartel's got a busload of immigrants, and they've been taken from everywhere from China to Africa to, I guess, Eastern Europe or something.
So they're all over the place.
If you were to do a survey of the, let's say, attitudes or philosophies of the people on that bus, How many are conservative and how many are liberal on the generic immigrant bus?
Remember people, they're not French.
They're not French.
They're not British.
They're not Australian.
They're not woke.
My guess is they're bringing busloads of unwoke people into the country.
Now that doesn't mean that they register as Republican, but I think from a social perspective, they're bringing in way more conservative people than their own base.
Am I wrong?
Given that it's the specific collection of people from all over the world, do you think the Africans are liberal?
You think Africans are liberal?
I mean, in some senses, of course.
You know, certainly racially, they would be.
I mean, at least they wouldn't want any discrimination against themselves.
Well, I don't know.
So, I don't understand why the border is open, because I don't see the play.
It doesn't look like simple incompetence.
It looks like a plan, but the only way it makes sense to me is... What's the only way it makes... There you go.
The only way it makes sense is if China or one of our adversaries has bribed the president to go easy on the border.
I mean, to me, it looks like there's some outside force.
Because there's nothing in the news that would explain what we're seeing.
It would have to be an external force, or it could be an internal force, but one that's not reported or we don't see, it's invisible somehow.
There is some outside force that causes the Biden administration, which means Biden himself.
Would you agree that Biden himself is the person in charge of whether it's open or closed?
That doesn't stop anywhere else, right?
Now, of course, he delegates stuff.
Well, no.
But in terms of on paper, he's the one in charge of the border.
Not Kamala.
Alright, so that was kind of a shocker to find that RFK Jr.
is not only a close-to-the-border Democrat, he's more close-to-the-border than any Republican I've ever seen.
He is more close-to-the-border than any Republican I've ever seen.
Because he's got better reasons.
He's coming at it with facts.
He did his own research.
He went there himself.
He interviewed busloads of people individually.
He actually understands the whole situation.
And if you want me to finish this conversation, it goes like this.
The cartels, when families come through, they remove the young and attractive, traffickable women.
And then they send the rest of the family on their way.
That's right.
They'll take your sister and your wife, turn them into prostitutes, and send you on your way to America.
Now, RFK Jr.
explains that.
I mean, this is a well-known, understood phenomenon.
And you talk to families that had a member taken away to be trafficked.
And traffic, by the way, would be the good news.
That would be the best outcome.
The bad news is rape to death, right there while you're 100 yards away.
So that's what's happening on our border, and that's what the Biden administration, and Biden himself, is specifically allowing.
Because they're, you know, quite aware of it, but they're allowing it.
Here's the second big change.
RFK Jr.
says that when he talks about the environment, he rarely talks about climate and climate change risk.
Do you know what reason he gave For why he doesn't talk about climate change risk, but rather he tries to talk about the things where everybody would agree, which is better water, better air, and moving toward energy that's less polluting in general.
Do you know why he says he's not talking climate change risk?
Doesn't believe scientists and doesn't believe the model.
Thank you.
You know, how long have people been telling me, Scott, why do you keep saying that RFK Jr.
says some good things that you like when you know he's like a climate change crazy guy?
And he's always been a climate change crazy guy.
Well, I could not believe that everything else RFK Jr.
said about the experts didn't apply to climate scientists.
Because he's not coming across as a partisan.
He is coming across, right or wrong, like maybe some of his ideas are terrific, maybe some of them are terrible, I don't know.
I'm not the one really to judge them all.
But I know he's not being partisan.
I know he's not just playing for a team.
And his skepticism about scientists who are paid for their opinions, basically, his skepticism does apply to climate change models.
Exactly.
As you think it should have.
Am I wrong?
Isn't everything that RFK Jr.
has said about pharma, big food, big companies polluting, and the CIA, I mean, isn't everything he says consistent with not believing the scientific climate change models?
It is.
That is 100% consistent.
He's telling you the entire system is corrupt, And so he doesn't believe any of the corrupt parts.
That's pretty good.
Now, somebody said to me, but Scott, he said he wants to get rid of coal and oil.
Do you think that's true?
Do you think it's true that RFK wants to get rid of coal and oil?
The answer is incomplete.
Incomplete.
Yes, he does.
Yes, he does want to get rid of them.
Do you know what he wants to do to get rid of them?
Let the free market get rid of them.
That's right.
He wants the free market to properly price all of our energy components so that one of them is not accidentally subsidized for no good purpose other than the profits of the subsidized.
Now, I don't know if that's a good idea.
Sounds like it might be.
I mean, it's very much Could be.
I just don't know if the free market is as efficient as he'd like it to be, or if we could get it there.
But do you hate the fact that he's anti-coal and anti-oil in only the sense that it needs to compete fairly against the green energy, and if it wins, it wins, and if it doesn't, it doesn't.
And if it wins for a while and then doesn't, that's the free market.
But he's not worried about the climate models and the risk of us being killed.
He wants to breathe and eat and go to the doctor without getting fucked up by assholes.
That's it.
That's pretty reasonable.
Now I'm not, you know, I'm not endorsing him.
I'm just saying that when you see somebody enter the race in a non-partisan fashion and look at, like, really, really show complete, I would say complete credibility, In the way he talks about the issues.
You don't have to agree with him.
But he's definitely trying.
He's trying to include the evidence that one side always likes to ignore.
You know, in both cases.
Now that doesn't make him your candidate, right?
You may disagree with him on an abortion or something else.
But, my God, he's doing a good job.
And he's doing a great job for the country.
You know, just helping us shape our arguments and how we think about this stuff.
I mean, a great job.
If the only thing RFK Jr.
did was create this border documentary and inform us what's really going on for the first time, in my case, I think others might have known it.
But that's a tremendous, tremendous benefit to the country.
That's pure good citizenship.
Now, you know, I tell you Vivek is amazing every day, and again, he's created some more videos where his take is the best one.
He was talking about Taiwan.
See if you don't think this is the cleanest take on Taiwan.
I'm not saying it's the best.
Because I'm not sure any solution is perfect.
But he says that as long as Taiwan is our vital source of microchips, and we're not really that close to replacing them, he says as long as that's true, China's not going to take Taiwan if he's president.
Just period.
It's just not going to happen.
Whatever it takes, they're not going to take Taiwan under these circumstances.
But here's the nuance.
He says once America recaptures its ability to do advanced microchips, he says then it's a civil war.
And then you have to recalibrate because at that point we would not have a vital security interest.
But until then he would float maybe destroyers or crews or whatever through the straits to make sure that China knows that we're not going to give up our microchips.
That's just not going to happen.
Pretty good.
Pretty good.
I don't know if it's complete.
It's pretty good.
You know, for somebody whose message is, let's take care of ourselves.
Alright.
I've got a troll on here that's... I feel like the good trolls take the summer off.
Like, it'll be until September until somebody really trolls me good.
But I'm getting the...
The all-caps trolls?
I think the all-caps trolls are the ones who are even disregarded by other trolls.
I think even other trolls have a hierarchy of trolling.
It's like, you're an all-caps troll, aren't you?
I go for more of the emotional stuff.
I'll try to find what somebody is saying politically.
I'll try to say what they're saying politically, but then I'll go after them for whatever personal tragedy they had.
Like that's a higher-end troll.
But even they don't like the all-caps trolls.
It's like, you're making us look bad.
You know, I just said something about his dead stepson, and I think I nailed it, and then you made me look bad with your all-caps comment.
Could you please take your all-caps to the lower league of trolling and not make us all look bad?
All right, here's a question for you.
Rasmussen did a poll.
How many people do you believe, who are likely voters, believe that as a vice presidential running mate, Kamala Harris helps Biden's chances in 2024?
How many think that she helps his chance?
Oh yeah, that's a pretty good guess.
It's 22%.
But your guess of 25 was really close.
Again, the smartest audience ever.
And I did note that many of you had the answer before I asked the question, and you won't see that on the live streams.
Right?
You watch another live stream, usually it's like somebody will ask a question, and then there'll be the answer.
Because that's the slower viewers, that's the way they do it.
It's like, I've got to wait for the question.
Oh, here's the answer.
So slow.
So old.
No, my viewers give the answer before the question, and that's the way to do it.
Here's an update on my book.
You know I've got a new book, Reframe Your Brain?
Because my publisher canceled me.
The update is I am banned for life on Amazon KDP.
Now that's the service that independent publishers use to put books on Amazon.
So to make it available.
Now the reason for banning me for life is that I don't own my own book.
They say.
Now I do own my book.
I own all the rights.
I have all the documentation.
I have the assignment documents which have been provided to them from the from the start.
So from the start, they had the documents showing my ownership.
But when we say, what's wrong with my documents showing my ownership?
They say, well, we'll have to study this and get back to you.
And then they study it and they say, you're still banned for life.
And then I say, yeah, but like, why?
Is there somebody you think owns it?
Or do you think that I'm not me?
And they say, banned for life, confirmed.
Five days, we're going to look at it again.
Now, it took me a while, because these were email exchanges with the support.
It took me a while to realize I'm talking to an AI.
I'm pretty sure the responses didn't have any tells for human.
Now, they were signed by a human name.
So several of the messages had different names.
There's Christopher, and there's somebody else.
But the message, and two of them came back identical.
Right?
So I know they weren't reading the message.
Now, I made sure that I wrote my message in a way, the last one, that it would be impossible to ignore what I said and simply say some canned response, but I got a canned response.
And it would have been impossible for a human to ignore what I said.
So, I don't have any way to even figure it out.
So we're going to look for alternatives and we'll see if we can solve it.
Now, before you go all conspiracy theory, There's no indication it's anything but maybe a system problem.
Probably if I had to guess it's because my old publisher had some placeholders online for the future book and maybe those are confusing the system.
It's probably some AI system that checks content to make sure you check something to make sure you own it.
Now, it is not a conspiracy theory.
Don't think this is part of cancellation.
Now, it is true that I was cancelled in newspapers primarily because the Washington Post, I think, was the leading entity that cancelled me.
And then the other newspapers said, oh, if the Washington Post does it, we all have to do it.
So the Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos, who's a notable Democrat.
And he also owns Amazon, which just banned me for life.
So the two Jeff Bezos properties have banned me for life to make it impossible to be a public figure and earn a living.
But, we're still going to call that a coincidence.
Alright?
Because the problem is, he owns so many things that the odds of running into him are pretty high.
The odds of running into a Bezos something is pretty high.
So it doesn't mean that he's behind anything.
However, if I were him, I'd be deeply embarrassed.
Imagine being the guy who owns Amazon, which is basically a bastion of free speech.
In my opinion, Amazon is one of the greatest companies ever created.
Amazon is more than just a company.
It's amazing.
They do such a good job at Amazon, the software and the technology, that you forget How many mistakes somebody could make with this business?
The fact that they operate so well, I mean, it's not perfect, but they operate so well in an amazing, complex environment, it's just jaw-dropping every time I see it.
So I think Amazon's one of the greatest companies of all time.
I mean, that's not saying anything shocking.
So, great company.
And I don't think Jeff Bezos is sitting around worrying about what Scott does.
So I think it'd be highly unlikely That he had made some personal decisions in any way.
But if I were him, I'd be pretty embarrassed if two of my major properties had banned me for life over bullshit.
So that's where we are.
I'm working with Joshua Lysak.
We'll work out the business options.
Apparently we have some options.
So it's not like I'll be banned and never be able to put the book out.
It'll be available somewhere.
Probably in the next week or two.
Probably.
The hard cover so far has not been stopped because it's going to come through a different path.
But they might stop it.
That would be consistent.
So that's the update on that.
All right.
Mike Certevich's warning of genocide.
He says that the The situation in the United States is fitting a pattern of, you know, polarization and demonization and, you know, there's a pretty well-known pattern that gets you to genocide.
You know, dehumanization, let's say, by the media, debanking, we're seeing that, and then prosecutions that you think are bullshit.
So every one of those things is happening right now in the United States.
Does that mean we're going to have a full breakdown of civilization?
And people will be killing people in the streets?
I don't think so.
You know, I actually don't, I just don't feel it.
I don't feel it in the zeitgeist at all.
I don't feel it outside of social media.
And social media doesn't have arms and legs.
So, I don't know, I don't feel it at all.
But you know, I don't spend a lot of time around people, so... Do you?
Do you feel it in your real life?
In your real life, is anybody like cleaning their guns and getting ready to go to war?
When you say you feel it, but do you feel it in your daily life?
Forget about social media.
Forget about social media.
In your daily life, you feel like there's a civil war coming?
I don't see anything like that.
A lot of people are saying yes, by the way.
But my opinion is that you may be biased by social media to see it.
But although some of you probably have family members who are so spoiled, even your own family looks like a civil war at this point.
All right.
So I'm going to be counter to that, but I think he makes a warning that you should pay attention to, which is this stuff can get out of hand really quickly.
So where he and I will agree completely, two places.
All the signs are there.
I agree with that.
If you go down the list, all the signs are there.
And number two, it can happen quickly.
So you can say to yourself, yeah, yeah, Scott, the signs are there, but you know, we'd have lots of a warning before it got that bad.
No, no, you wouldn't.
That's really important to know.
You wouldn't have a lot of warning because you have a lot of warning right now.
So if you're telling yourself we'd have lots of warning to correct, this is the warning.
Where's the correction?
You're warned.
You couldn't be warned any clearer than this.
But as somebody else pointed out, what's it mean when the country is heavily armed?
And the answer is, we're going to stay solid.
Because we're too heavily armed.
The arming gives you a little confidence and you can make the political system do what you want eventually.
So I think we'll be fine.
It could get worse before it gets better, but I don't think we're going to full genocide.
Trump, apparently they want to get a Trump mugshot, but I think there's some possibility they could make that go away because it's not necessary for the most famous face in the world.
The reason you do mugshots, I'm told, is in case somebody tries to escape the law.
You've got a picture of them for later.
But if you're the most famous face in the world, do you really need a mugshot?
Where is he going to hide?
But this gives me the question, I think maybe he won't do it, but if he does do it, the biggest question I have is does he go for the smile or the power stare?
Right?
Because you see the smile when he poses for pictures.
His smile isn't his best look.
I mean, it's good that he can smile, but you know, he has sort of a smile for the cameras look that's not ideal.
You know what I mean?
The I'm smiling because I'm on camera look, that's not your best smile.
But you know, you do what you can if you're a politician.
You gotta show the teeth, right?
But he has a power stare that's killer, wouldn't you say?
The power stare.
I don't know if I can do it, but it'd be something like this.
You know, the dad's coming home stare.
The one I want to see is the dad coming home stare.
The one that says, just wait.
Just wait.
That's the one I want to see.
And as Sticks and Hammers said, it's going to be the most memed image of all time.
Nothing will be more memed than his mugshot.
So I say, do the mugshot.
Do the mugshot.
His base is waiting, like they're waiting at their computers.
Do it.
Do it!
All right.
Trump.
All right, Trump does a video in which he's claiming the election was rigged.
And he's calling the people who did it riggers.
How long did it take?
For somebody in social media to say, rigors?
Wait a minute.
Is this another one of those racist things he's saying without saying it?
Is this racist mafia talk?
Does he really mean the n-word but he's using the r-word to try to beat it in some kind of a clever workaround?
No.
Do you think he's calling people who do elections the n-word?
No.
But do you think it ever crossed his mind that it would make a lot of trouble if he used the word?
Maybe.
Maybe.
Which would be frickin' hilarious.
It would be hilarious.
So, rig up, please.
Anyway.
In my opinion, reality is already starting to bend.
The reality that we're told is reality that is that the election was clean and the way that you know the election was clean is that they didn't find any problems.
Half of the country thinks that makes sense.
Let me say it again so we can laugh at half of the country.
Half of the country will say this on social media in public like they think it makes sense and that you're dumb for not understanding.
Here's what they say.
The elections were definitely clean because there's no publicly known information that would refute that.
It's 2023 and people will say that in public.
And they'll think, well, this is the smart take.
The smart take is that they didn't find any problems.
So therefore it's clean.
Now, I don't need to even say anything about that, do I?
Imagine that, imagine that... Stop it!
Stop it.
I'm not even going to read that comment.
Stop it.
Just stop it.
Alright, I'll tell you about it later.
I'll tell you about it during the man cave.
It was too inappropriate for public, but it was funny.
Alright, let's not insult anybody if we don't need to.
Unless they have it coming.
So, I lost my train of thought.
That was just too funny.
All right.
Train of thought.
Back online.
Stop it.
Stop it.
You're terrible.
Stop it.
So here's what I think.
I can almost feel the simulation changing.
Now, of course, this is just a mental phenomenon.
I'm not saying we're necessarily in a simulation.
But it seems like it.
And here's what the simulation requires.
It requires Trump to be in the greatest legal jeopardy, whatever that looks like.
It looks like we're approaching it.
The greatest legal jeopardy.
And it should be about his claims that the election was fake.
And then, in the nick of time, There's going to be a discovery that the election was actually fraudulent.
Now, I do not have any evidence that I think is credible of fraud.
I do have credible people saying, you know, if you look online, there are people who are credible to me who are saying that they found things and this is the new Kraken.
But I'm too primed not to accept a new Kraken.
Is anybody with me on that?
I've been slapped so hard that I'm not going to endorse any krakens, even if they look good on paper.
Because remember, a lot of the claims looked really good on paper, didn't they?
And I warned you from the beginning that even if something is fraudulent, which I didn't know, that there would be 95% of the claims would be debunked and properly debunked.
And that's what we saw.
We saw so far 100% debunked.
That's the official story.
But do you think that means they don't exist?
I guess I went through that before.
But it feels to me like the reality, the simulation, the zeitgeist, every part of my body thinks he's going to pull a rabbit out of a hat.
Why do I feel that?
I feel it like it's already happened.
I feel it like a fact in the future.
But I have no evidence for it.
No evidence whatsoever.
There's nothing I see, nothing, that tells me that's going to happen, except it just feels like it.
It just frickin' feels like it.
And I feel like this feels like it thing is more meaningful than it sounds.
You know, if it were nothing but a feeling.
But man, it feels like just there's too much going on that the frothiness of the topic, you can just feel it.
And I would actually be surprised at this point if he doesn't have a third act that shows there was at least some meaningful fraud in at least one important place.
And if it turns out to be Georgia, oh my God.
Oh my God.
Now, I have no reason to believe it would be.
No reason at all.
But I feel it.
I feel it.
Well, of course, Alan Dershowitz has weighed in on the Trump charges.
He largely thinks that they're a political joke.
And I love reading the Democrats who are giving me a hard time online.
Because they're quite sure that with this many indictments, oh my god, so many indictments, I think there's 10,000 now, right?
10,000 indictments.
Or something.
10, or 13, or 72, or some number.
So therefore, he's clearly a criminal that's been proven by the indictments.
But of course, indictments are easy to get.
Doesn't mean anybody's guilty.
And Dershowitz basically thinks the charges are political and ridiculous and will, no matter what happens in the lower courts, the Supreme Court will laugh at them and toss them out, and that's his prediction.
Now if you're a Democrat and you're not one of the top lawyers of all time, don't you feel a little silly saying that the walls are closing in, they got him this time?
As long as Dershowitz is over here saying, no, I'm predicting this will all go away.
It will affect the elections, of course, but in the end, it's all transparently, obviously, weak and political, and the Supreme Court will just wipe it away like schmutz from their eye.
Terrible analogy.
So he also points out that Ricoh, which, yeah, and of course Dershowitz has been everywhere that's important in the law, so he's like, his personal friend is the one who invented the Ricoh statue.
He knows everything about Ricoh, right?
And he says it wasn't meant...
For political people doing political stuff.
I mean, it was meant for other purposes.
It's been repurposed from Mafia to some other things, but it made sense when they repurposed it.
He doesn't think this application of RICO is going to stand the full test to the Supreme Court, I guess.
Dershowitz points out, and I haven't heard of this anywhere else, that the judge in this case lied in public, knows she lied, and everybody else knows she lied, and it's basically going to be a trial about somebody lying.
But anyway, the judge said they're trying to wrap it up in six months, and Dershowitz just laughs at that, because the other thing she said is that she's going to trial the many defendants sort of simultaneously, And Dershowitz points out, with that many defendants, you could have 50 lawyers in the room, just for the defendants, you know, let's say they have two apiece, and 50 lawyers dealing with every motion.
So somebody could say something like, I'd like to move the venue, and then somebody else could say, I like this venue, and all 50 of them would have to hammer it out.
So that you have a process that not only can't be done in six months, But it's really, really, really, really obvious that the judge was lying, because nothing could be done.
Nothing of that complexity could be done in six months under those conditions.
It just can't happen.
It's undoable.
And our, is it the prosecutor?
Oh, it was the judge.
I think it was the judge, wasn't it?
Oh, the DA.
Oh, I'm being fact-checked.
It was the DA, not the judge.
Thank you.
Thank you.
DA, not the judge.
That's an important correction.
It's the DA who said it would be six months, not the judge.
All right.
Thank you for that.
So that's the beauty of the live format.
I love being fact-checked in real time.
I think that really helps.
All right.
So the biggest, I think one of the biggest keys to this, the Trump charges, are that perfect phone call, as he says.
Do you remember how many times you've seen That we need to find 11,780 votes.
You've seen that in headlines, you've seen it from pundits, you've seen it on the news, right?
So that's all true, because it's on the news, it's quoted, and you've probably even seen, or you've probably even heard audio of him saying it, have you not?
Well, I found out today that this was always a rupar, and I didn't know it.
Now, if you're new to me, A rupar, r-u-p-a-r, refers to a video, but it can apply to audio as well, in which you delete part of it, and here's the weird characteristic of a rupar.
Deleting part of it reverses its meaning.
Reverses it.
It doesn't just take a nuance away, it actually reverses it.
So for example, some Ruppars were the fine people oaks.
If you take away the part where he says, immediately after he said fine people, he said I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis, they should be condemned completely.
If you remove that, which they did, it reverses the meaning from disavowing Nazis, which he said explicitly, to complimenting them and supporting Nazis.
It's a complete reversal by removing one part.
Likewise, with the drinking bleach oaks, when they remove the part before he talks about it and immediately after, those are the two clarifications.
The clarifications were that he was talking about light being brought into the lungs, you know, literally putting a stent down there or something and shining light on the lungs as a possible disinfectant.
The news removed the reference of light on both ends, and he made sure he put it on both ends so you wouldn't be confused.
So they removed it and reported it, and that changed it to, he wants you to drink bleach.
Now, drinking bleach is not even similar in any way to shining light down your lungs.
Now, I'm watching some people who are finding this out for the first time.
Imagine you're watching this live stream right now, and you're hearing this for the first time.
And I just saw somebody go, LOL.
Sorry.
This is really mind-bending if you haven't heard it before.
Here's another one.
The overfeeding the koi, the fish, in Japan.
So the real video showed he was with, I guess it was President Abe.
Or one of the presidents, I forget who it was.
I think it was Abe, right?
And the two of them were feeding koi fish by throwing some, you know, bread or whatever in.
And then when they were done, Abe led by dumping the rest of his fish food in, because he was done.
And then Trump also dumped his in, because he was following the leader, literally.
When you cut out the part where Abe went first, the news showed that Trump was a big ol' dope, and instead of feeding the fish like a little at a time, he just dumped his fish food in.
That's a rhubarb.
You remember the Covington Kids video?
It looked like the teenager was getting in the face of some Native American.
Oh my God, that kid fooled me.
Fooled me for 24 hours.
But it's because they clipped out the part where it was the Native American guy who was actually getting in the face of the kid.
It looked opposite if you take that out.
So the Rupar, remember that, the Rupar doesn't just change like a detail.
It completely changes the story to an opposite or something that's horrible.
Horrible in the opposite direction.
Right.
So in the drinking bleach hoax, Trump was actually ahead of the scientists because he was aware of a trial that was actually being trialed at that time to see if light would work as a disinfectant in the trachea and the lungs.
So he knew something above the scientists and the news reversed it to not only did he know more about that one little thing, but that he was so dumb he thinks you should drink bleach.
Now, half of the country actually believed all of those things, and still does.
Half of the country believes all of those things, because a Rupar video is really persuasive.
It's really persuasive.
So, it turns out that this 511,780 votes was just another Rupar, and I didn't find that out until fucking today.
Today is the day I found that out.
Can you believe it?
Now I'll explain it to you, because you might not be aware of it.
I know, for example, Breitbart did report this when it happened, but I think we lost, you know, if you ever knew it, you probably forgot it by now.
I did.
Here's his actual full statement.
So this is on audio.
We know this is his full statement.
So look, all I want to do is this.
I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is more than we have because we won the state.
Which part do they take out?
Because we won the state.
If you take out because we won the state, which is a very clear statement that he believes that they're trying to take an illegitimate result Look at it more closely and come up with a legitimate vote.
Because he thinks he won.
What part do they leave out every fucking time?
Because we won the state.
What is the entire trial is about?
His state of mind.
Did he really believe he won the state or not?
Now this alone would not be evidence of his state of mind because they could just say he was lying.
But it is evidence, not conclusive, but it's more evidence of... I would say this is exculpatory.
Exculpatory?
Am I using that word right?
It's evidence that we should be given, the public, and certainly the court, but we should be given this evidence from the beginning, because this is the part that gives you context to explain what he's saying.
Imagine you heard only this.
I just want you to find 11,780 votes.
Does that sound like mafia talk?
Yeah, a little bit.
A little bit, doesn't it?
Sounds a little bit like mafia talk.
It's not guaranteed it's mafia talk, but you could easily imagine it, right?
You could imagine it.
Now you add Because we won the state.
Is that what the mafia guy says?
Does the mafia guy, does the mafia boss say, I'd like you to go get that thing that we legally own?
Hey, I'd like you to go to the store and get me some products.
All right, I'm gonna steal some products for you.
No, no, no, here's the money.
Take the money, go to the store, pay for the products, bring them to me.
And the change too?
Yes, the change too.
Go to the store, pay for the products, put them in a bag, get a receipt, bring it to me.
That's what they're accusing him of.
They're accusing him of asking for something he is specifically calling out as legal.
That's the mafia talk.
He might go to jail because of a Rupar audio.
Which basically has biased the entire world, so that by the time you reach the jury pool, you're so polluted that it wouldn't matter what you heard at that point.
Yeah, it goes to his intention.
And his intention is completely different if he says, I think I won.
Can you find the evidence of that by looking more carefully?
Completely different.
Are you using an analogy?
No, I'm using several different stories.
Oh, the mafia analogy?
Is that an analogy?
Let me think.
It's... Let me tell you the right way to use an analogy and the wrong way.
The wrong way to use an analogy is that that's your argument.
All right?
Now, hold on.
People think I'm busted.
I'm not.
I've always said the same.
Analogy is a good way to introduce a concept It's not how you win an argument.
So I think I said very clearly that the argument is that he said he believes he won the state.
So that's the argument.
So the argument doesn't need the analogy.
The analogy is in case you didn't catch the argument.
It's like another way to bring you into the argument.
It's not the argument.
So I'm not winning any arguments by an analogy.
I'm using them to further clarify a situation.
That is a proper use.
The improper use is to say it reminds me of something and therefore that's not a proper use.
All right, but look at how much you learned today.
So Let me run something by you.
Can you imagine Trump giving some kind of a speech or national address or something as he's running for office, in which he simply lays out how the gears of the machine work.
He simply lays out how the Biden crime family does their work, even if the end result is there's no criminal liability.
Just lay it out.
In case you didn't know, this is how that's done.
Then move on to the media and say, all right, here's some things, and you could even use the Peter Zan explanation that they don't collect real news, they're really opinion manufacturing entities.
Just sort of describe that world.
People will say, yeah, that's probably true.
And just describe some of the other worlds, such as, how did the Russia collusion hoax?
So could you imagine Trump Running through each of the hoaxes, including, and this would make you happy, pandemic-related hoaxes, or bad behavior, let's say.
Imagine him laying out all of the parts and saying, and why did this happen?
Well, follow the money.
Here's how this happened.
Why did this happen?
Follow the money.
You can see the gears of the machine.
So imagine to him, it doesn't have to be Trump, but imagine somebody just laying out How everything works.
Because remember, Dave Chappelle actually gave him credit once for doing exactly that.
When Trump said the system is rigged, and the reason he knows, you know, the whole political system is rigged, and the reason he knows is that he's part of the rigging.
As a citizen, he was donating to things and using the system.
So even Chappelle said, you know, at least he told you honestly.
You know, that's worth something.
He actually told you to your face how the system works.
I wouldn't mind seeing a little more of that, would you?
A little more of that, please?
Yeah, but he's got to find, I think he also, he probably has to find election rigging.
He has to kind of prove it.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong.
Isn't Trump, didn't he say someday soon he's going to do a big Election speech on Monday, right?
So on Monday, he's going to present, I guess, the information.
Now, do you expect that the information he presents is going to hold up to scrutiny?
Because I imagine it's more than one claim, right?
I assume he's going to give you several claims.
If he gave you one claim, like one really good claim, I would say his odds of being right are much higher than if he gives you five.
If he gives you five, it's going to look like laundry list persuasion.
As in, well, none of these are proven, but look how many there are.
You know, where there's smoke, there must be fire, sort of thing.
That would be persuasion.
If he gives you one, he might have the goods.
So that's the first thing you look for.
Look for the one that just wins the day.
Because maybe there is one.
Who knows?
I don't know.
If he gives you the one that's really strong and then can't help himself and he's got to mention all the other ones that are not as strong, that's a waste of time.
All that will happen is the news will debunk the weak ones.
They will ignore the strong one.
Am I right?
You all know it.
They will ignore the strong one, they'll debunk the weak ones, and they'll tell you that they're done.
And they're all debunked.
Right?
Now, Trump could also explain that, because that's how the gears of the machine work.
Imagine him giving the speech and saying, all right, now here's how the gears of the machine work.
I've given you five examples.
One of them I believe is really solid.
Watch the news coverage tomorrow.
They're only going to talk about the other ones, which even I tell you need more investigation.
These are not guaranteed.
These are just red flags.
But watch how they treat the red flags as the one they debunk, if they can.
And they ignore my strong one.
Now, he won't do that, but you can imagine he could.
All right, well, that's going to be must-watch TV.
Do you think there's anything that would stop you from watching Trump try to pull off the third act?
Because that's the third act.
If he pulls it off, that's the third act.
I wouldn't put a big bet on it because I don't know it'll be as clean as he gives a speech and that's his third act and everything changes.
I doubt that because the media will just try to eviscerate him no matter what he says.
But it could be that maybe he starts a spark of something that maybe somebody later can prove is real.
We'll see.
I wouldn't expect any major change on Monday, but it's so, I mean, I'm so interested.
You know, what is it that after all of these fake claims, fake meaning unproven, after all the times that, you know, he got his hopes up, do you think that this is the time of all times, is this the time he would come forth with, okay, we finally got the goods?
This would be the time?
Unless he really had it?
I mean, it would be a hell of a gutsy play if he didn't have the goods.
But, you know, it's possible he could think he has them and doesn't.
You never know.
Yeah.
All right.
So YouTube, their new rules are that they can ban you for content that disagrees with the World Health Organization or local health officials like the CDC.
Michael Schellenberger is pointing out that it will censor you if you disagree with the World Health Organization.
Think about that.
Do you realize that I would have been censored?
So when the World Health Organization first said some stuff about masks and I tried to debunk them, I would have been banned on YouTube.
Amazing.
All right.
But then Michael Schellenberger says, YouTube isn't a social media platform, it's a propaganda platform.
And I said to myself, huh, I kind of like that framing.
Because by my count, your account might be different.
But by my count, there's only one social media platform, and the rest are propaganda platforms.
They're advertising and propaganda.
But there's one that's actually social media, that's X. X is at least trying to be a social media platform.
The other ones are just essentially propaganda platforms that suck money out of your pockets and sell to advertisers.
All right.
Yeah, you don't tweet anymore, you exclaim.
Or you post.
Post is the most boring word for it, but I guess that's what we're going with.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, more to Elon Musk's point.
If you looked at me a year ago and you said, how do you prepare for this live stream?
I would say I read the news and I collect the news and then I talk about it with my own opinions.
But lately, I've realized that I've done the show without ever checking the news.
Because I check social media, which picks out pieces from the news and often refers to the actual news source.
But that's the only way this seems to make sense.
Do you know why?
If you go to CNN and you see a story, you're going to see the CNN spin of the story.
Is that useful?
It's worse than nothing.
It would be better if you'd never seen it, because it's a spin.
It's the opposite of news.
It's sort of managed news.
If you go to Fox News, are you ever going to see them agreeing with CNN?
No.
They have their own spin on things.
So if you see either news, You've got to go to both sources and make sure you've cross-checked your work, which I do all the time.
I show you that.
I like to see something's true on both platforms before I'm sure it's true.
If only one platform says it's true, well, I don't know.
Probably not.
Maybe.
However, I've noticed lately I can spend all of my time on Twitter because if there's a story that makes my hair on fire, like, ah, did somebody really do or say that?
There'll be a community note, or there'll be another human saying, no, this is out of context.
This is what they left out.
Here's a link to the opposite story.
So when I read Twitter, I get the news from both directions.
When I read any platform, other so-called news platforms, I have to go to at least two sources so I've seen both sides.
But Twitter has it there automatically.
You can always count on the trolls to come in and give you as much trouble as possible.
The trolls actually are kind of useful, because even when they don't say factual arguments, they give you a sense of how people are feeling.
They give you a sense of basically how brainwashed they are.
When you see the trolls, let's say the trolls who are not just saying a bad thing, they're trying to argue the politics, You should feel sorry for them because the trolls are the most hypnotized, brainwashed people.
They're not coming at you with their better arguments.
They're coming up with, you know, TDS.
So you can see the effects of brainwashing best on the trolls.
So you don't want to get rid of the trolls.
They're like this little indicator of how bad the brainwashing is.
Because the more brainwashing, the more trolls.
All right.
The trolls are the ones who say, it was an insurrection.
Yeah, so if you didn't know from the trolls that they actually believed there was an insurrection on January 6th, or an attempted one, you would not necessarily think that's even a thing.
Like your brain would say, well nobody's going to believe that Republicans do an insurrection without weapons.
Have you gone down the January 6th well?
So each of the arguments that are fake, fake narrative arguments, they all have what I call the well.
So it goes like this.
Let's see if I can roughly do it without preparing.
January 6th was an armed insurrection.
And then I come in and say, there's no such thing as Republicans doing an armed insurrection without firearms.
But it was violent.
All right, so you're going down the well.
All right, all right, so yeah, they didn't all have weapons.
But a lot of people had weapons.
Okay, but nobody actually brandished a gun, right?
But they had guns.
Oh, those guns were taken away from them.
They had guns.
They had bear spray.
They beat people with objects.
Right, right, right.
But what percentage of those people were involved in that?
Well, there's a lot of violence.
There's a lot of violence.
Here's all the examples.
I know, I know.
With all the people there, what percentage of them were actually doing something violent?
People got killed.
Right, right, right.
Ashley Babbitt got killed, and some of the police officers died soon after, and that's very tragic, and may have been in large part because of it.
Tragic.
So you can just keep going down the well, but ultimately they have to believe That Republicans tried to conquer the country by trespassing in a building.
You take the trolls all the way down to, but ultimately what you believe is that weapons or not, violence or not, that the plan for conquering the country was to wander around in a building.
What do they say after you get to the bottom of the well and say, but explain, explain how the rest of their plan went.
So you trespass, and then you get the nuclear codes?
And who delivers them?
Does the guy who carries the football actually knock on the door and say, it looks like we have new leadership, you trespassers, which one of you?
Guy with the bison hat, I got the nuclear, can you connect the dots?
Just tell me how the plan was going to work its way out.
When you get to the bottom of the well, and you get to that point, what does the troll say?
Remember, they're deeply hypnotized.
These are not people operating under reason.
They are literally, and I'm not saying this for political points or anything, they are actually brainwashed.
Actually, literally brainwashed.
What do they do?
Well, in my experience, they say something like, well, why'd your wife leave you?
That's what I get.
Or I get, why is your stepson dead?
That's what I get.
Yeah, when you get to the bottom of the well, it's pretty dark down there.
So if you don't have the stones to go to the bottom of the well five times a day, you need to stay off Twitter.
Spend a lot of time in the bottom of the well.
All right.
That's all I got for today.
Thanks for watching YouTube.
It's the best show you've ever seen or ever will see until tomorrow.
