Episode 2237 Scott Adams: We Can See The Gears Of The Fascist Machine Now. It's Not Good, Not Good
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, LBM AI Training, Don Jr. Trump, TikTok Influence Risk, Jeff Yass, Club For Growth, Rand Paul, Jacinda Ardern, Free Speech, Louis C.K., Open Borders, Elon Musk Investigation, Obesity Explained, Christopher Rufo, Ibram X. Kendi, F-35 Mystery, Alejandro Mayorkas, Intelligence Experts Panel, John Brennan, James Clapper, Government Trust, Waking Trance Tells, Russell Brand, President Biden, President Trump, 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
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and aren't you glad you're here?
Because today, if you'd like to take your experience up to levels which have never been known to human beings, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chalice, 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, the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
It goes like this.
Ah.
I feel that your oxytocin was just activated.
Even from a distance, it's one of my powers.
I wonder if you could increase somebody's oxytocin by hypnosis.
I'll bet you could.
I'll bet that's actually possible.
But let's talk about the news.
So there's a new way that AI is being trained.
You know, the old way was it would look at words and it would say, oh, if this combination of words is more common, then it'll use it that way.
And so just the combination of words created this AI that we use now.
But you might also be aware That Tesla is using a video training thing, so it's training its cars to drive autonomously, by just feeding it a gazillion videos of cars driving.
And it doesn't teach it any rules, it just shows it a bazillion miles of driving, and the AI just figures out how to drive, by looking at how other people drive.
But apparently that could be extended to other things.
So now there's something called the LBM.
So the LLM is the Large Language Model.
So that's trained on human words.
And the LBM is the Behavior Model.
So here's how they train it to make breakfast.
They put the AI there and they say, watch this.
And then they make breakfast in front of it.
And then they do it again a bunch of times.
And then it knows how to make breakfast.
Now it's only going to know what you cooked in front of it, but it's actually learning tasks by observation.
I guess one of the breakthroughs is they gave it a thumb that can feel, like a human hand.
So if you've got at least one part of the robot that can feel something, then the feeling adds to its learning, so it learns faster.
But apparently you can just teach it things.
It's already taught it a bunch of things.
Now my only caution to this is the first time I read about this was 15 or 20 years ago.
I think it was at least 15 years ago that I saw an article that a robot had been trained to fold laundry simply by looking at a lot of people folding laundry, I guess.
But that robot never turned into anything.
But it looks like it's the same model.
You just show it how you do it, and it learns it.
So that's pretty exciting.
Maybe it will learn to do everything.
Like I said, the robots will take all the manual labor jobs, but then AI will take all the intelligence-related jobs.
But that still leaves a lot of room for humans.
It's called crime.
So if you want to Get your criminal skills up to date.
It might be all you have left.
Well, Don Jr.' 's account got hacked on the X-Profile.
And somebody had a good time tweeting on his behalf.
Let me just tell you some of the things that were tweeted from Don Jr.' 's account that were not actually Don Jr.
North Korea is about to get smoked.
Okay.
And I'm sorry to announce my father passed away.
I'll be running for president.
Yeah.
And more like that.
I believe the N-word was a part of it.
Yeah.
Yeah.
He got... Now that's hacked.
That is hacked.
Do you know what weird thought I had basically yesterday and today?
One of my devices, I don't want to be specific, but one of my devices is showing an indication that somebody's in my phone or in my account in some way.
And, you know, there's a whole bunch of things you can do.
Like you can get rid of your phone and then you can put it on total lockdown mode.
You can get rid of all your prior apps and reload them from scratch.
So I know how to create a clean phone.
But the work involved in making sure that my phone is clean is more than the benefit of having my privacy.
Isn't that weird?
I actually compared the two and I thought, you know what?
I just don't even need my privacy that much.
They win.
Yeah, they win.
Exactly.
They win.
When I looked at how much work it would take to secure my phone, and then when it's secured, let me just give you a hint.
Once your phone is secured, the only way it could ever stay that way is if you never click on a link again on your phone.
That's the only way.
If you click on a link, even if it comes from your best friend, you don't know if your best friend got, you know, taken by the same link.
Right?
So, if your phone can't be used to click on a link, it's almost useless.
Because I use my phone mostly for work-related stuff.
And it's just people sending me links all day.
It's basically the only thing I do with my phone.
Look at links.
If I can't do that, I don't even need the phone, practically.
I mean, I'm exaggerating.
But they actually got to the point We're actually at a point where there are two things that I assume to be true.
Number one, I'm definitely compromised, just because I do, you know, political things in public.
I just assume somebody's in there, maybe more than one entity, I don't know.
The other thing I assume is that if somebody wanted to find out something about me, there's nothing that would stop them.
So, I mean, I could, I don't really have anything I can think of to hide, but if they wanted to find out more about me, I don't know that I could stop anybody.
And the other thing is that the moment I cleaned my phone, wouldn't I have to do the same thing with all of my devices?
From my, you know, iPads to my laptop.
And if they were in any one of them, they're going to be into everything.
Right?
So it's basically a situation where it's not actually practical to keep hackers out of my private information.
It's actually not possible.
I don't see any practical way I could do that.
I mean, I could do it for a minute.
I could get a burner phone that would have no utility.
But I wouldn't be able to just do my business and also maintain my privacy.
Those two things I don't think can happen.
Two phones?
Yeah, that's just too much trouble.
Yeah.
So, I don't know.
I think we're all hacked.
All right, I'm going to talk about a story and I'm going to try not to lose my shit.
Like, I'm really going to try hard.
I'm just going to tell you the story and try not to lose my shit.
So this is, I believe, we're coming up on the five-year anniversary of China killing my stepson, along with the cartels.
So my stepson died of a fentanyl overdose five years ago.
Now, in 2018, I said I was going to destroy China in revenge.
And if you believe Peter Zayan, it's pretty much almost dead.
It's going to fall apart any time.
However, I'm sure that my feelings about China also influence my feelings about TikTok.
Because TikTok is As many people said, digital fentanyl.
So to me, the TikTok issue and the fentanyl issue are just two ways that China is killing Americans and destroying America.
So in my head, even though they're very different topics, they're not.
They're not different topics.
So this is all by way of telling you, I do not have an objective feeling about this topic.
And I'm just barely containing myself right now.
I'm just barely holding on.
I'm going to tell you what the story is in the Wall Street Journal today about TikTok.
I'm not sure I could even get through this.
Honest to God, I think I'm going to fucking lose it.
But I'll do the best I can just to tell you the story.
So this is the Wall Street Journal.
I think I'll just read it.
Washington.
TikTok has hardly any friends in government.
Earlier this year, as the Biden administration, Congress, and state legislatures were threatening to ban the Chinese-owned video giant.
Now, would you agree that I was part of the push to ban TikTok?
I mean, I don't know who was talking about it harder than I was.
In some ways, I feel like I might have actually been the main influence.
I'm not sure.
But there were other people, right?
So here's the background.
That Congress was against TikTok, and it looked like there was going to be a movement to ban it.
And then do you remember it didn't happen?
And you kept wondering, well, what's going on?
Like, why is it not happening?
It's so obvious.
And then did you notice that every time the politicians talked about it, They wouldn't say that there was an influence risk, which is actually the big risk.
They would say there was a data risk.
And I kept saying, why do you keep saying data risk, although that is a small risk, when the big risk is the one you're not mentioning?
Like, why do you keep doing that?
Now, the only thing I could think of is that some members of Congress, enough of them, had been bought off by TikTok.
Because it looked exactly like somebody had been bribed.
And probably a lot of people have been bribed.
So that's what I thought at the time.
And I think many of you can verify that I said it publicly and probably a whole bunch of times.
Right?
Can you verify that I said publicly, Congress must be bought off because there's no explanation for this observation.
Now let me read on.
Let me continue reading on from the Wall Street Journal.
TikTok now has many more friends.
Huh.
How did TikTok get so many friends in Congress?
With something in common.
Backing from billionaire financier Jeff Yass.
Y-A-S-S.
They've helped stall attempts to outlaw America's most downloaded app.
Huh.
Why would this billionaire care about this app?
Why does a billionaire care about a TikTok app, huh?
Well, here's why.
Yas's investment company, Susquehanna International Group, bet big on TikTok in 2012.
Boy, that was a good time to bet on it.
Buying a stake in parent company ByteDance, now measured at about 15%.
So he owns 15% of ByteDance, which owns TikTok.
That translates into a personal stake for Yas of 7% in ByteDance.
So he doesn't own everything that's invested in it, he owns part of the investment.
It is worth roughly 21 billion dollars.
That's one guy, one investor, one person, is worth an extra 21 billion.
Now he's already a billionaire, but that's most of his net worth.
The vast majority of his net worth is TikTok.
And his whole valuation, like the billionaire, is worth $28 billion, but 21 of the $28 billion of his net worth is just TikTok.
Okay.
That's just because TikTok did so well.
Let's go on.
Yas is also one of the top donors to the Club for Growth.
The Club for Growth.
Well, I wonder who that is.
Who's the Club for Growth?
It's an influential conservative group that rallied Republican opposition to a TikTok ban.
Yass has donated $61 million to the Club for Growth political spending arm since 2010, or about 24% of its total, according to federal records.
The Club for Growth made public its opposition to banning TikTok in March, in an opinion article by its president, at a time when sentiment against the platform, among segments of both parties, was running high on Capitol Hill.
You ready for this part?
Oh, it gets worse.
This gets worse.
Days later, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky stood up on the Senate floor and quashed an attempt to fast-track a bill by Senator Josh Hawley to ban downloading of the TikTok app.
Senator Rand Paul said, quote, we will be acting like the Chinese government if we ban TikTok here, Paul said around that time.
In June, that's just a few months after Rand Paul said that, Yass donated $3 million to a political committee backing Paul.
Including that contribution, Yass and his wife, Janine, have donated more than $24 million to Paul, or committees that support him, since 2015.
According to federal records, Club for Growth has given Paul And supporting political committees, 1.8 million since 2020.
It was exactly what it looks like.
It's Rand Paul.
Now, let me give you a little bit, you know, I want to show both sides.
Rand Paul is unique in that he's more libertarian.
Libertarians don't like governments interfering with their business.
Do you think that's what's going on?
Do you think Rand Paul is simply being a good libertarian and he's just being true to his belief that the government shouldn't get involved in banning stuff?
Yeah.
Well, let's look at his statement.
We will be acting like the Chinese government if we ban TikTok here.
Well, that's correct, isn't it?
Isn't that correct?
We would be acting like the Chinese government if we banned TikTok.
Do you know why that would be like the Chinese government?
Because the Chinese government bans TikTok in their own country because it would be damaging to the children.
So yes, we would be acting like China because China is acting correctly.
They're protecting their children.
Does this sound like a real opinion that Rand Paul has?
Do you believe this is his literal, literally this is just his whole opinion?
Well, to me it looks exactly like what it looks like that he's bought.
That China owns, China indirectly, through the billionaire, owns Rand Paul.
And Josh Hawley, we should conclude, is not owned.
By China.
Because Josh Hawley tried to kill it, and Rand Paul stopped it from being killed.
Now why did it take so long for me to learn this?
Why did it take so long for you to learn it?
And by the way, big props to the Wall Street Journal for doing the article.
I should have noted the authors.
But I recommend it.
Just go to the Wall Street Journal and click on it.
See what's up.
So why do you think we found this out now?
I don't know, but I would hate to think it's because Murdoch, who owns the Wall Street Journal, and is a billionaire himself, may have some problems with this other billionaire.
Like, maybe it's not even news, for all I know.
It could be just one billionaire's mad at another billionaire and found a way to take it out on him.
So, you can't really trust anything, can you?
But at least we know more than we knew before.
Somebody said, give Rand Paul 48 hours to respond.
No.
No.
Nope.
Absolutely not.
No, no, no, no, no.
No, he's not going to give 40 hours to respond.
How do you feel about that?
How do you feel about the fact that Rand Paul is fucking your kids?
For money.
Yeah, he's fucking your children for money.
I mean, not physically fucking them, but he is destroying their brains and their lives with TikTok, apparently for money.
Now, isn't it convenient that it also matches somewhat his political opinions that the government shouldn't be involved?
But you know, you don't have to be much of a mind reader to know that's not what's going on here.
Follow the money.
It's very predictive.
It's exactly what you thought it was.
All right.
Now, let me change topics.
Let's see.
This was a situation where it was very clear that the right thing to do was to ban it.
Very clear.
Very clear.
Is there any other situation where it's very clear what the right thing to do is, but for some reason Congress isn't doing it?
Can you think of another one like that?
Yeah, the border.
That's right.
The border is exactly like this, at least observed from the outside.
It's something in which you should assume that Congress overwhelmingly agrees that it should be closed or controlled, and yet it's not happening.
TikTok overwhelmingly was, you know, people were in favor of banning it, but it wasn't happening.
It's the same situation.
You can now comfortably assume, based on pattern recognition and the fact that the government is guilty until proven innocent, not the other way around, as long as there's lack of transparency, they're guilty.
You just have to assume that.
And so it seems that the cartels, either through some other billionaire or directly, have enough control of our Congress that they can make us do things we don't want to do.
Yeah.
So I think it is fair to hear what Rand Paul says in response.
But if it's true that he's the one who stopped the ban, I don't really need to hear anything else.
Because there's no way in the world he's dumb enough to not know what he did.
He knows what he did.
If this reporting is true, it seems credible to me.
It's a credible source.
Talking about public information.
So, you know, how wrong can it be?
But we'll see.
I mean, maybe there's more to this story.
But at the moment, it looks like Rand Paul is just bought and paid for.
That's what it looks like.
Do you all agree with that interpretation?
That Rand Paul is just bought?
I'm seeing a no.
All right, but let me ask you this.
Those of you who are saying no, I know it's because you have good feelings about him and so have I up until this point, but it's going to be a little hard to ignore this.
Pretty hard to ignore this.
Well, there's a lot of people who still want to back him, even knowing he's operating against the United States.
But you understand he's operating against the interests of the United States in probably the most basic way that is destroying the country.
You don't think that TikTok is the main reason the country is fucked?
You haven't been paying attention if you don't think it's the main reason.
It's the main reason.
Our youth has been destroyed.
Their minds have been turned into shit by this app.
And others like it, but it's the primary one.
So what else is going on?
The ex-Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern, this is Jonathan Turley tweeting about this and writing about it, she's turned out to be the number one voice for censoring free speech.
Is that amazing that the Prime Minister, ex-Prime Minister of New Zealand, is like giving talks at the United Nations and she's just directly is against free speech.
She says misinformation must be stopped and the government gets to decide what is misinformation.
What is that?
That is the end of free speech.
How in the world does she not know that?
What would you assume about Somebody who has an opinion that is so objectively and obviously bad for the world.
You have to assume she's owned by somebody who has some financial interest.
You could not assume that this is a real opinion.
Does anybody think this is a real opinion?
That the government should be in charge of what's real?
Do you think she really believes that?
That the governments should tell everybody what's true?
Really?
You think she really believes that?
Because you know who believes that?
Nobody.
There's nobody who believes that.
There's only people who want their version of truth to be supreme.
You know, if Republicans somehow won all branches of the government, do you think that the Democrats would be saying, you know, you gotta listen to the government when it tells you what's true.
No, they would say that the government is lying because it's all Republicans.
You should really listen to Democrats.
But when the Democrats have sufficient control of the government, then they say you should listen to the government.
Coincidentally, Democrats.
So none of this is about information or misinformation or your health.
It's complete control.
It's just a control play.
Like so many other things are.
Well, if you were a subscriber to Dilbert Reborn, either on the Locals platform or you could subscribe on the X platform.
Just hit the subscription button to see Dilbert every day, the spicier version that's not censored by anybody.
But you would be amused to know that Dogbert has started a non-profit organization called the Dogbert Defamation League.
And his business model is accusing corporations of being racist unless they donate to the Dogbert Defamation League.
And let me tell you, business is booming.
So that's what you're missing if you're not subscribing to the Dilbert Reborn comic.
Well, Louis C.K.
made the terrible mistake of trying to talk about something that mattered.
Every now and then you wonder how dumb people can be who seem otherwise successful and smart.
And Louis C.K.
explained why he was in support of open borders.
I think it was on Joe Rogan's show.
And he said, quote, My feeling is that we should open it.
Let everybody pour in.
But then there will be all these problems.
Yes, there should be.
It shouldn't be so great here in America.
And he goes on to explain that because America is doing so well, and other places are not doing as well, that it's not fair that we keep all our good stuff, that we should let them in to have our stuff.
Do I need to spend even 10 seconds describing why that's the dumbest opinion in the history of all opinions in the world since the beginning of the universe and the Big Bang and possibly before the Big Bang when there was another timeline that existed in... No, I don't.
I don't.
That is so dumb.
That one wonders, what does somebody's face even look like when they say something like that?
So I captured a screenshot of Louis C.K.
as he was describing his erudite ideas.
So here's the picture.
I swear this is not photoshopped.
He actually looked like the pointy haired boss in Dilbert.
He actually looked like the pointy haired boss when he said it.
Now, again, this is not photoshopped.
It's unfair to catch somebody in mid-speech because their mouth will be funny, like that.
But that's actually his picture.
Now, have you ever seen a face that matched an opinion better than this one?
So if you didn't see the picture and I said he was in favor of open borders because we have too much, you'd say, who said that?
And I would say, a person that you thought was a reasonable person.
And then you say, who?
And I'd say, well, let me show you a picture of the person who said that.
And then I'd show them this picture.
And then you would say, oh, I get it now.
I get it.
Oh, wait, I can put my own picture next to it.
Oh, my God, I can make the reflection.
I can make him turn into me.
Are you seeing this?
It's different on the two platforms.
I can make him talk.
We should open the waters!
We should open the waters!
Okay.
That was weird.
Well, let's see, there's a new investigation that's going to be opened on Elon Musk.
Oh, what a big surprise.
It turns out it was a bit of a hunting trip to find out if they could find any bad stuff on Elon Musk to shut him down.
So let me see if I get this right.
So Congress wants to promote TikTok, for which some members are getting paid, indirectly.
But it wants to kill Twitter probably, because it's the last place you have free speech in the United States.
In any practical way.
Everything else is just narrative and bullshit and fuckery.
But now he's being investigated for... The allegation doesn't even make sense to me.
So I'll tell you the allegation, but I'll tell you also, I'm positive this doesn't make sense.
So the allegation is that Musk was going to use Tesla as like a private piggy bank to pay for what would be an elaborate home he was going to build, some kind of a glass home.
Now, I don't know if that ever happened.
I think maybe there was some movement on it.
Maybe it's not happening now.
I don't know.
But do you believe, is there any part of you that believes that Elon Musk Who's running a public company, right, has shareholders, and that he was going to take some untold millions of dollars just out of the shareholders' money, and he was just going to buy a house with it.
Because that's what's being reported.
That he was just sort of expensing it off of Tesla.
Does that sound even slightly true?
No.
It doesn't, there's not even like, like, 0.001% whiff of that possibly being true.
But do you think that the public is aware that there's basically no way that could happen in a public company?
There is no way that could happen in a public company.
It just couldn't happen.
But that's the news.
The news is saying that maybe it happened.
It's crazy.
All right.
Well, if there's more to this than I know, I'll update it.
So there's a new study, they did some brain imaging, and they found that people who are likely to be obese have a heightened neural sensitivity to reward.
So people who overeat get more benefit from overeating.
It just, it feels better.
Have you heard, have you heard that opinion from anyone who was, let's say, not a research scientist?
Somebody who wasn't an expert?
Yeah, me.
As I've told you a number of times, and I love telling this story, because it's when I learned probably the best lesson I ever had in my life.
I was taking hypnosis class and the instructor was overweight himself.
And, you know, I don't know if you'd call him obese, but he was in that neighborhood.
And He explained why, even though he's a hypnotist, he couldn't be hypnotized to quit eating.
And here was his entire explanation of everything you need to know about diets and dieting.
I like to eat.
That was it.
I like to eat.
And he said if you didn't like it so much, you wouldn't do it.
And the extension from that is that people who don't like to eat as much are going to be able to control their weight.
Now, I'm a perfect example.
I'm currently... Actually, I overshot my mark.
I'm actually below the weight I would like to be at the moment.
I could probably add two pounds.
But I got there effortlessly by just not eating bread for a while.
That's it.
I just took bread out of my diet.
Nothing else.
Just any bread and lost 10 pounds right away.
Now, do I sound like somebody who's obsessed about food?
No.
I'm not a foodie.
I don't like dessert.
I'm just not drawn to it.
It's the same reason I'm not an alcoholic.
Do you know why I'm not an alcoholic?
I don't enjoy alcohol as much as alcoholics do.
Do you know I'm not fat?
Because I don't enjoy food as much as other people do.
And that's it.
Once you understand that one sentence, I like to eat, that's the explanation of everything in the world.
If you believe there's this thing called willpower, that doesn't make sense.
Because you could say, yeah, yeah, yeah, maybe you like it better, but you use your willpower.
You've just got to ramp up your willpower a little higher.
Just get a little more willpower.
There is no such thing as willpower or free will.
There are only competing things that you like to do or you're afraid of.
That's it.
There are things you want to do and there are things you're afraid of.
There's nothing else.
And if there's something you're not afraid of and you want to do it, you're going to do a lot of it.
If that happens to be eating, you're going to eat too much.
Everything can be explained by simply competing levels of interest, how much you want something.
It explains your entire, all behavior, all activity, all human activity.
Everything you see can be described by people follow the thing they like the most and they fear the least.
That's it.
You don't need any free will or willpower or any of that stuff.
And you can explain all observations.
Nothing's left out.
Anyway, that's just another example in which the people who are hypnotists have learned what science is learning 40 years later.
And it's alright.
Now, I may have told you this about the large language models.
As a hypnotist, I'd learned 40 years ago that people don't have actual thoughts, like reason.
That they just put words together, and then they say later, well, that was a reason.
And that's what the large language models taught us 40 years later.
Yeah, hypnosis was way ahead.
of all the brain science.
And it wasn't because there was any science to hypnosis.
It was just trial and error.
And it became obvious what a brain was if you're a hypnotist.
If you weren't a hypnotist, you believed in magic.
Oh, I've got a soul and free will and willpower.
These are all just magical thinking.
Hypnotists don't see any of that in practice.
They just see it like a machine and then explains everything.
All right, here's a Horrible trend that you knew was going to happen, but I'm going to give you the most optimistic take.
So over in Spain, there were dozens of girls reporting in school that people had generated AI-based nudes of them.
So they were fake, but they were AI-made, so they probably took a photograph of the real face and then added the nakedness to it.
So of course, it's a huge Psychological traumatic experience, as you imagine it would be.
But by the end of this year, every girl in high school will have an unauthorized AI nude.
Of them.
Because their friends will be happy to do it.
All they need is to take an app and take a photo and drag it in and push a button and you get a nude picture of your classmate.
Of course everybody's going to do it.
Of course they will.
There's nothing that can stop it.
And it wouldn't even be illegal to do it privately for your own purposes.
I don't even know if it's illegal to pass it around, but I'll bet you could find a law that violates.
If it's not the actual person, then it wouldn't have the same criminal problems as a picture of the actual person.
But it would be abusive.
And if there's blackmail involved, I guess sometimes there's blackmail involved.
So there would be lots of crimes that they could hit without it being an actual picture of the person, I guess.
Yeah, there's nothing that can stop it.
But here, do you want to hear the positive thing?
Here's the positive part of that.
In theory, as the fakes get better and better, two things are going to happen.
Number one, you will get bored by it.
Imagine the first time you see an AI picture of one of your classmates and you're 14 years old.
You're 14 years old.
You're like, oh, this is the greatest thing.
I'm going to send it to all my friends.
And then they say, what app did you use?
And they're like, oh, we've got to make some more of these.
I've got somebody else I want to do this to.
So you do a few more of your friends.
And you know, it's trauma, and it's psychological damage.
It's terrible.
And then a few more people do it because it's easy, and a few more people do it because the other ones didn't get caught.
And pretty soon, you will literally be bored when you see another AI nude picture of your classmate.
It's just going to be like another meme.
It will just be a meme.
You'll just be boop.
Now you might say to yourself, oh this one's really funny, and you might send it around.
But nobody's gonna believe it's real.
See where I'm going?
Pretty soon, and very soon, even the real pictures of you nude will be regarded as fake, because the fakes look like the real ones.
So you're gonna get to the point where nobody cares, That even an underage person has a picture floating around, because people will just assume it's AI, or that they don't know, and they will also be completely bored by it.
They will be completely bored by it.
You'll see a nude of your best friend and you'll be like, so?
It's not a real nude.
Yeah, I've seen 50 of these.
So, yeah, I think that It will be terrible for a while, and then we'll just get used to it and it won't be such a thing.
All right, Christopher Ruffo.
I think I'm pronouncing that right.
R-U-F-O?
Is it Ruffo or Ruffo?
Does anybody know?
I'd like to say it right.
Who?
Ruffo?
Okay, I think it's Ruffo.
But he likes dunking on Ibram Kendi, who are, let's say, What would be the right word?
Policy-wise, they would be opposites, right?
So Ibram is the anti-racist guy who many would say is actually just a racist.
Rufo tweets this.
Ibram X. Kendi has admitted defeat.
In the latest edition of his book, Kendi has deleted his most famous quotation.
I guess he used to say, the only remedy to racist discrimination is anti-racist discrimination.
And then Rufo says he blames white people for making him look racist.
He recommended racism against white people and then blames white people for making him look racist.
And then, you know, I'll remind you of the other news that Kennedy had some kind of an anti-racist center that had been partially funded by, I think, Jack Dorsey and some other entities.
And he had a little staff of people doing anti-racist stuff.
And the staff ended up complaining about him.
So, he actually created a group of professional complainers, and then it turns out, oops, you got a bunch of professional complainers on your staff.
I mean, who would have seen that coming?
You hired professional victims.
They were literally people who were primed to be victims, and you hired them, and then they said that they were victims working for you.
Who could have seen that coming?
Well, I'll tell you who could have seen it coming.
Anybody who understands how cause and effect works.
Do you think Louis C.K.
understands how cause and effect works?
When he says open the border?
He actually couldn't game that through in his mind to understand what the cause would have affected.
He actually couldn't do it.
And almost anybody could do it.
I mean, I'm sure I could get a 12-year-old to game that out.
Or if you open the borders, tell me what happens next.
He couldn't do it.
He thought everything would work out.
Okay.
Anyway, that was fun to dunk on Kendi.
Yeah, I do feel like there's some kind of a corner being turned on all the DEI and CRT and ESG stuff.
It's way more obvious that it's destroying the world now, right?
It's completely poisoned race relations.
And it made it, basically, it made it dangerous for white people to be around black people who had been trained to complain about you.
Which, again, has nothing about being black, has nothing about your DNA, nothing about anybody's genetics.
But if you happen to be a group of people who have been trained to demonize another group, well, if you're the demonized group, you should get some distance from that group, if you can.
Get as far away as you can.
It's not really possible, so that's hyperbole.
All right.
Have you ever seen anybody criticize me for having an opinion on something on which I'm not an expert?
Has anybody ever seen that?
Has anybody ever seen me say, but Scott, you're not an expert on that?
Every day.
Every day.
Now I defend myself by saying I'm not an expert on anything.
Well, not any of the things in the news usually.
But I do have one expertise.
I'm pretty good at telling when somebody's lying.
And when it's bullshit.
And you don't really need to be an expert in the field to recognize bullshit.
Would you agree that recognizing bullshit is my expertise?
I mean, I do it every day.
You can look at my track record yourself.
I think it's the best there is, by far.
Actually, let me ask you this.
For those who have been watching me for a few years, is my calling of bullshit the best you've ever seen?
The best you've ever seen.
Yeah, a wall of yeses for the people who watch me the most.
It is the best you've ever seen.
It's because the hypnosis skill set, plus my age, plus having a business background, it gives you a lot of windows into things, and so you can see the bullshit a little faster.
For example, if you didn't understand how business models work, it would be harder to spot bullshit.
If you didn't know that follow the money always works, you'd be confused about a lot of stuff.
If you didn't know that the story that grabs your interest the most in the news, wow, I can't believe it, is almost certainly to be untrue.
That's why it grabbed your interest, because it's almost certainly that it's untrue.
How about those Mexican UFO bodies?
Could you look away for that for even a minute?
The moment you saw UFO bodies and found, didn't you stop everything?
Didn't you stop even thinking about other things?
Zoop!
And look at that?
Yeah.
That's your tell that it's fake.
As soon as you found your brain hijacked, that's like an 80 to 90% likelihood it's fake.
Because real things don't do that.
Real things are not that interesting.
It's the fake stuff that gets you to, like, what?
So here's another one of those situations.
When the F-35 went missing, with what the government is calling now a mishap, I weighed in with my lack of expertise, saying this.
Nobody ejects from a plane that's still at a high altitude, you know, high enough that it's their normal flying altitude, and it's capable of flying another 80 miles, or at least a long distance.
We didn't know it was 80 miles.
But it was obviously flying on its own, and it wasn't flying directly to the ground.
So what I said, with my total lack of expertise, Is that it's very unlikely that there was a catastrophic problem, because we would know that.
If the plane blew up, or if let's say the cockpit was full of smoke, it's the first thing you'd know.
They would tell you that right away.
Oh, there was a technical problem in the plane, so we grounded the fleet until we find out what it is, to see if it's common to any of the other planes.
So you could know right away That the first level of bullshit was, you knew the government knew if the plane had failed in a normal way that was just some kind of mechanical problem, right?
You would have known right away, because that's the first thing they would have told you.
There was a mechanical problem, the pilot got out safely, because that would be like a success, right?
If the pilot got out safely after a catastrophic mechanical problem, I think they'd want you to know.
That the system works well enough that even if a plane fails, which would be kind of rare, the pilot gets out alive.
That would actually be more of a plus than a negative.
If you thought about it in its totality, it's more of a plus.
But we didn't hear that, did we?
So you knew something was going on that wasn't the normal stuff.
The normal stuff would be there's a problem with the plane and it's catastrophic and so the pilot got out.
The fact that you didn't hear that explanation right away, the most normal obvious one it could be, is a really clear signal there's something else happening.
But the fact that the plane was not near the ground and was able to fly when the pilot left is a very strong indication that there's another mystery involved.
And now that it's being called a mishap, what does that tell you?
So the official word, which was used by, who was the guy in charge?
His name, I can't remember.
But basically all the guys in charge are saying, and women in charge, Kirby.
Yeah, Kirby said mishap as well.
So mishap, when do you use the word mishap?
Under what conditions would you call this, what we know about it, a mishap?
Well, the first thing you'd have to know is that they don't know the real cause.
They're not sure the real cause.
It's possible it's pilot error, and they don't want you to know that.
That's possible.
So one of the possibilities is pilot error, and they don't want you to know.
The other possibility is they suspect it was hacked, but they don't know yet.
Or they suspect it was hacked, they do know, and they don't want to tell you, or they'll never tell you.
But the word mishap, in my opinion, eliminates the possibility that there was a catastrophic problem.
Because if there was a catastrophic technical failure, they would just tell you.
The pilot would say, I don't know what went on, but major failure, I have to get out.
And then they would say, there's a major failure, we don't know what it is, pilot left.
But they called it a mishap.
So my bullshit indicator, Was correct the first time.
I'm positive now there was not a catastrophic jet-can't-fly-anymore problem.
Would you give me that?
Is it too soon?
Is it too soon to say that my bullshit detector accurately detected it was not a normal catastrophic problem in the air?
I think so.
So far it looks like I'm right.
Without any expertise.
Except that I was once married to a pilot, so I know that pilots don't think, pilots don't think of jumping out when the plane can still fly.
It's just not a thing.
All right.
Here are some more gears of the machine.
So Joel Pollack writes about this in Breitbart.
So the Department of Homeland Security, and the secretary there is Alejandro Mayorkas.
Same person who's in charge of the border security.
So the person that you don't trust, because he's in charge of border security and appears to be doing nothing like border security, looks like he's just letting everybody in, which might be more of a Congress problem or a President problem.
Maybe he's just doing what he has to do.
But we don't trust him.
Because he's the person most associated with lying about what's happening at the border.
At the very least, he's lying about it.
I don't know what else he's doing, but he's certainly lying about it.
And he's not doing anything to fix it.
It's his job to fix it, and it's our biggest risk at the moment.
So you have big questions about that, don't you?
But just to make you doubly suspicious, he's created some kind of an advisory board, the Intelligence Experts Group.
And it's comprised of private sector experts who are going to give their unique perspective on the federal government's intelligence, you know, entire workings.
And two of the people that were appointed to that were John Brennan and James Clapper.
Oh, my goodness.
Oh, my God.
Oh my goodness!
Now, this audience is well trained, right?
I would say that the people watching this live stream right now, and the people who watch it recorded, are probably in, would you agree with this statement, in the top 5% of well-informed people about politics.
Wouldn't you say you're in the top 5%?
Generally speaking, right?
Now, as soon as I said these names, John Brennan and James Clapper, everybody who's been paying attention, all of your flags went up, right?
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa!
These are designated liars.
I've already told you, with these specific names, that when they trot out the designated liars, there's something terrible going on.
So, we don't know what the deal is with Mayorkas, and we don't know what the deal is with the border, we just know it looks crooked.
It looks crooked.
And then, to bolster his support, he added the two most crooked known liars in the intelligence world.
Now, who would do that?
Who would ever do that?
Well, it would be somebody who knows that 95% of the world won't notice, or will think that these are good people to have in the committee.
Probably.
But to me it looks like a criminal enterprise is just making sure that their criminals are on all the important committees and watchdog groups and fact-checkers.
It just seems more of the important people making sure that they have their plants in all the important positions.
Now, have I ever told you that one of the ways the machine works, the Democrat machine, is they create fake advisory watchdog think tanks?
They put their people there, and then the people that they put there say what they want them to say, and then the politicians can say, you know, it's not just me.
I mean, this think tank advisory committee, all these advisors, they say it too.
So don't give me a hard time.
I'm just taking expert advice.
But it's not real expert advice.
It's people that they put in these jobs who are owned in some way, either by money or blackmail or common interest.
And then they pretend to the other 95% of the public that there's some kind of legitimate system and it's all operating properly because they can't see the gears.
But would you agree That with the Rand Paul story about TikTok, you can see the gears of the machine.
It's really obvious what went on.
Really obvious.
And with the border, is it not completely obvious that the intention is to keep it open with all of the damage it will cause?
It's very clear.
You know what I'm wondering?
Does somebody have blackmail on Alexander Soros?
Or maybe even his father.
Because there's no way to explain the Soros donations.
And Elon Musk said this.
He said you can't explain it based on any public information.
There's nothing that we know publicly that explains these activities.
It could only be that somebody is trying to destroy America.
Because you would never let the criminals out of jail and open the borders to the cartels.
You would never do that.
Now, nobody who understands as much as Alexander Soros must understand about the world.
By now, he knows the gears of the machine probably better than anybody.
Do you think that he would let this happen unless he was under duress?
I think he's under duress.
Meaning that somebody has something on him.
Because imagine if you could control the entire Soros empire by blackmailing one person.
Now you know he's not doing it for money because he has all the money in the world.
So what else would make you do something that is obviously bad for you in the world?
Blackmail.
I can't think of anything but blackmail that would do it.
So my working assumption is that Alexander Soros is being blackmailed.
Because you couldn't explain anything he's doing any other way.
There's no way to explain it.
So that's my working assumption, but I don't have direct evidence of anything like that.
Let's see if you can spot the propaganda.
I saw a tweet about a poll And the poll says that both Democrats and Republicans have an unprecedented low trust in politics and their own political parties.
So, trust?
It's to make sure Trump doesn't get in.
Yeah.
So do you think that's the way to frame the story?
That the public has an unprecedented level of distrust in politics?
Is that the right way to say the story?
Say the same thing in the non-propaganda way.
Alright, here's the non-propaganda way.
Politicians are so corrupt that the public Now understands the level of corruption, and they've adjusted their opinion accordingly.
The story makes it sound like the public has some problem, that they have a lack of trust.
You know, as if the media is the problem.
Like the suggestion is, there's something that happened in the public's mind, you know, maybe the media, you know, maybe the social media is like polluting their minds, so that they have so little trust.
That is a backwards way to tell the story.
The story is the government can't be trusted and the public is catching on.
Why isn't that the way they write the story?
That's the true, that's the most accurate way to describe it.
Politics is bad and the public is caught on.
Can you see the gears of the machine?
Even the polls Whether they collude to do it or they just know to do it, are part of the machine to disguise from you the badness of the political system.
All right.
Here's my provocative thing I'm going to add here.
I'm going to make a claim that you'll have to fact check on your own, I guess.
And the claim is this, that as a trained hypnotist, I can identify people who are in a waking trance.
Now, waking trance means that, you know, you're up and you're talking and you look like everybody else.
You're just doing your thing.
But, if you engage somebody in a topic in which they have been brainwashed, they immediately, their face and their actions, immediately go into a waking trance mode.
And one of the things that makes me crazy is that once you're trained to recognize it, you can't unsee it.
So a lot of what you think are people doing some kind of a political debate, nothing like that's happening.
They just go into a trance mode and they repeat what they've heard.
Now some of the tells for somebody who's in a waking trance mode would be Give you the tells and you've seen these all before but the more I tell you the more more easily you can spot them Do you ever see somebody who you give them some counterpoint to their point?
Let's say on the X platform.
They say blah blah is true.
And then let's say you give them a link to With some credible-looking data that's opposite of their opinion.
Do you ever see them say, oh, I didn't know about that?
No.
What they'll usually get is they'll show some level of consternation.
The consternation is a tell.
Because if you were just dealing with the topic, you would just deal with the information and you'd judge it good or bad or something like that.
But if you get mad and go after the person who said it, oh, well, that's exactly what you'd expect from a science-disbelieving mega-person.
Right?
That's a tell for somebody who's in a waking trance.
They can't process why what they're hearing doesn't match what they've been brainwashed to believe.
So the brainwashing is causing them to have an angry reaction to having the brainwashing being challenged by facts or reason.
So here's another one.
Look for the unusually high confidence in an opinion, which is word salad.
So somebody will give you an opinion in words, and you look at the words and you'll say, well, I understand how the sentence makes sense, but not how the point makes sense.
It looks like you just strung words together, and it looks like a pattern of words I've seen before.
You know, sort of like the large language model.
Because most people's opinions are assigned by their preferred media, and they'll use even the same language to describe it.
So if you see somebody with high confidence, But when they describe their opinion, it sounds like word salad.
It's the combination of the high confidence and the inability to say anything that makes sense.
That's a tell.
That they're in a waking trance.
Brainwashed, to use other words.
But the other way is one that I see, but I can't explain how to do it.
One of the biggest skills of a hypnotist is to observe the subject as they're hypnotizing him and to see if it's working or not.
And you can tell if it's working by very subtle differences in their posture, their breathing, their skin tone.
There might be a flushness.
There could be, you know, little ticks in their bodies.
So there's a whole bunch of things.
Well, if their eyes are open or closed, it's different, but you look for just the smallest tells of muscle ticks and posture and stuff.
Now, When I have a conversation with somebody who's showing these other tells, I'm usually also seeing it in their body.
You can actually tell somebody's brainwashed and in a waking trance if you're trained to see it.
So I have this terrible feeling that many of you don't have, which is when I'm walking around in public, I can tell the, not just walking around, but if you're having a conversation with somebody about politics, you can see them go into the trance.
And the eyes will change and their mannerism will change and they'll just be in the trance.
The Trump Derangement Syndrome trance.
Now the other thing that you look for is the wide-eyed.
If anybody saw Kirby talking to Martha McCallum, And he was being asked a series of questions.
When Kirby was telling you something that was true, and you didn't have any doubt about it, oh, that's true, his eyes would be normal, and he would talk like this.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, this is true.
As soon as he went into propaganda mode, his eyes would bug out like Adam Schiff.
And the bug eyes, if it's somebody who doesn't have bug eyes all the time, When they're trying to tell you something and their eyes go big, it's because they know they're lying, or they know it's propaganda, and they're trying to use their eyes to sell you what their words can't.
Right?
They use the eyes when they know that the words are not convincing.
When the words are convincing because it's just something normal and obvious, he doesn't do that.
But watch Kirby's big eyes.
That's another sign of somebody brainwashing you.
So I have this terrible experience where it's like I'm walking around with zombies and people who are in a hypnotic state and propagandists.
And if you think you're walking around with a bunch of people who are listening to the news and forming their own opinions, you're not even in my same world.
We are not in the same world.
Because I don't see anything like that.
I don't see people listening to the news and forming their own opinions.
I see people who have been propagandized and people who are propaganda people.
Now, nothing's 100%, right?
If there's a news topic that you don't have any emotional interest in, there's a really good chance you're just looking at the facts.
But as soon as you introduce any bit of emotion, any bit of caring, Any bit of team play, which is enough, just team play, oh, I gotta win, then everything goes off the rails and turns into pure propaganda.
People go into trance mode, their eyes get big, and there's nothing happening there in the form of reason or reasoning or even honest debate.
Social credit scores.
I don't think anything can stop it.
I feel like we're going to have to start another country.
So you know how the United States was formed by a group of people who wanted specific freedoms?
And religious freedom, I think, was top of the list, right?
And then that morphed into other freedoms, like freedom of speech.
That sounded good.
Freedom of assembly.
That stuff?
So the country was formed because where people were before, they didn't have the freedom that they wanted.
But unfortunately, America has turned into a propaganda cesspool.
So we don't have anything like free speech.
You know, you can get banned if you even try.
And we're just taking people out for like political things and something they did 20 years ago, which might have been plenty bad.
But it's not really a good system.
So it's almost like you want to go to a greenfield and say, all right, if you were the founders of the country and you knew that the internet was coming, would you have done anything differently?
And maybe you would.
One of the things you might have done is you might have written right into the Constitution that free speech applies to all digital means.
And it doesn't matter if somebody privately owns those digital means, they cannot stop your free speech.
Or something like that.
But to imagine that the system that was built in the pre-internet world should fit our current system is sort of unreasonable.
It's unreasonable to think that our current system is applicable to the mass brainwashing digital world we're in.
So at the very least, we should rethink free speech.
Like, how do you protect it?
And my view is that the one and only way to protect it is with community notes, or a system like that.
So you could imagine, for example, that Facebook and the other platforms, let's say the government said, here's the deal.
Your platforms can be anything you want, as long as it's legal.
But the one thing you can't do is suppress opinions and not allow context to be added to them.
So you have to build a system, like Community Notes, that context can be added to any political opinions, or medical or scientific, and that the platform can't take them away.
So if you're going to let people have speech on your platform, you have to let everybody have speech on your platform.
And there might be still some things, you know, like Child related things that just have to be banned.
But generally speaking, you'd say free speech means everybody gets to talk anything they want, as long as it's legal.
And you have to provide a context tool like community notes.
Now, how different would things be if everything had a context in it?
Like really, really different.
And there should be Some law that says you can't be, for example, demonetized based on an accusation, which is what's happening to Russell Brand.
Russell Brand is being demonetized because of an accusation.
Serious ones, but unproven.
Very unproven in the court of law.
So, yeah.
So it seems to me that we either need to start a country that has actual free speech, as we understand it in the digital world, or we have to make some basic changes about what platforms can do.
Because, you know, here's a conversation I'm really tired of.
These platforms are suppressing free speech.
They're privately owned.
Privately owned platforms.
They are not required to do what the government is required to do.
Yes, Dale.
Everybody knows that.
Everybody knows that.
So what you added to the conversation was nothing, because everybody knows that.
And still, while everybody knows that, We think that this is a new situation and should be rethought, and that perhaps some controls or some, let's say, guardrails would make sense in the digital world.
But they're private companies!
Yes, but in a practical sense, having free speech isn't really meaningful if you don't have access to social media.
So really, we should rethink, but they're private companies!
So that's how that conversation goes every time.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, I think I've come to the end of my most magnificent live stream.
I'd like to drink a toast to you, those people who are at the top 5% of people who know what's going on.
So you've seen the gears of the machine.
You can see the manipulation.
You can see the fake entities that support the other fake entities.
You know what a wrap-up smear is.
You know what propaganda looks like and how to spot it.
You know the tells for cognitive dissonance.
And you are probably the people who can keep this country running.
I was asked by Michael Malice.
So don't ask me when the podcast is going to drop, but I'll let you know when I know.
So I talked to Michael Malice, had a great conversation.
I think you're going to enjoy it.
But I want to offer some optimism that I offer there, which is most of the problems that we have right now in the country are the ones that have this long-term nature, like you can see them coming for a long time.
And America is terrific.
Fixing problems that they can see coming for a long time.
I call it the Adam's Law of slow-moving disasters.
If you can see it coming, you're probably going to be able to figure it out.
Because that's why we're still here.
There would be no humans if we were not really good at solving problems like that.
The ones that you worry about are the ones that catch you off guard, like the pandemic.
Pick the best relationships, not the best dilemmas.
Right?
I have to think about that.
Oh, the Fetterman dress code.
All right, let's talk about the Fetterman dress code.
So I'm sure that the dress code was changed because of Fetterman.
We all agree with that, right?
But I, for one, would be perfectly happy to see which of my politicians decide to go casual.
To me, that's just more information, if you know what I mean.
Are you following?
If Representative Boebert shows up to her job wearing what she wore to the play, well then I'm going to modify my opinion of how serious she is.
If everybody wears a suit except for Fetterman, I don't have a problem with that.
Do you?
Does anybody have a problem that he's the exception?
Because it's not helping him, is it?
Is anybody saying, you know, I like the cut of his jib, not so much because of his policies or his defective brain, but rather, his fashion choices are starting to work for me.
I feel that his rebellious look is part of something I feel good about.
I'd like to associate with that a little more closely.
Now, there's no problem.
There's nothing to be solved.
My guess is two or three times you're going to see somebody in a polo shirt because they just came off the golf course to do an important vote or something.
But otherwise, nobody's going to care.
It will have no impact on your life, and it is not the end of the republic.
I don't think you're going to see casual Jean Friday in Congress.
And if you do, well, the ones who don't do that are going to look a little better probably.
Is it disrespectful?
Let me debate that.
Is it disrespectful to dress down for one person who's kind of a special case?
Here's what I think.
Fetterman, this is going to sound weird, but just stay with me.
If, let's say, Steve Jobs were still alive and decided he wanted to run for the Senate, and Steve Jobs famously would always wear his black turtleneck and mom jeans.
Now suppose he won, and he won the Senate, and he said, you know what?
I want to keep wearing my outfit.
It's like my uniform.
Would you be okay if there was a special case for Steve Jobs to wear his turtleneck?
And jeans.
Would you be OK with that?
But would you find it disrespectful?
Would you find it disrespectful when somebody's brand is that they don't dress up for anything?
That's his brand.
You would?
OK.
All right.
So that was a good test just to see if you're consistent.
I don't have an opinion on it yet.
I'm just being making a point.
Here's my point.
If you generally just dropped the dress code, and everybody was part of that, and everybody started showing up in casual clothing, that would be suboptimal.
To me, that would not be a good situation.
And I would agree with you completely.
But there's something about Federman, That's different from all the rest.
Fetterman had made it his brand.
It's his political brand to dress like that.
Under that unique situation, in which it's your long-term political brand, I'm actually completely happy with an exception.
Because, and of course they'd have to make it something everybody could do, because you couldn't, you know, you don't want to make it rule for one person.
But I don't think the rest of the politicians are going to be dressing down.
I think the one guy who made it his brand will just keep doing his thing.
And if this guy had been Steve Jobs and I liked him more than I liked Fetterman, I'd probably say the same thing.
I'd say, you know what?
I'll make an exception for Steve Jobs.
Because that's been his long-term uniform.
So that's a different situation than just normal people dressing down.
So I see it differently.
And it doesn't bother me at all, actually.
It doesn't bother me at all.
By the way, I would like to point out that the best way you can keep your brain healthy and not propagandized and not brainwashed is sometimes you have to say a full-throated support for somebody you don't like.
If you can never do that, then you're just brainwashed.
This isn't team play.
Now, I don't need you to agree with me on this.
It's just not important.
I don't really care about the dress code.
But you should be able to do what I did.
Not on this topic, necessarily.
But on some topics, you should be able to say, I really don't like that guy, but I'm going to support him on this one thing.
If you can't do that, then you know about your own brain.
There's a problem.
It's a good practice to just routinely see if you can support the other side.
Just try to make your best argument for the opposite of your opinion and see what happens.
The people who can see the gears of the machine do look crazy to the other people.
But when they're seeing you, that's when they get that waking hypnosis look.
Federman is lowering the bar for everything.
Well, I'm all in on Federman.
Here's what I want.
The Democrats have taken, let's say, a suboptimal situation, because several of their members are just mentally incompetent at this point.
It's very suboptimal.
So if I'm looking at a suboptimal situation, I could be annoyed.
I have a lot of normal feelings.
It's like, ah, suboptimal.
Why can't they be better than that?
But the Democrats have gone so far into the absurd, like the fact that they're still pretending that Biden, you know, is whole, or that Kamala Harris is a backup.
None of these things are true.
Or that they pretend Fetterman's good enough.
Oh, he's fine.
He's fine.
None of this is true.
So we reached the point where I don't want them to stop doing it.
I don't want them to stop supporting these ridiculous things.
I want them to be anti-nuclear, because it's stupid now.
There was a time when I think reasonable people could be anti-nuclear, but with our current knowledge and the current technology, it's actually just stupid.
And there are enough people who know it that watching them play out is going to be fun.
So you tell me.
Tell me you wouldn't enjoy Biden running against Trump under the current situation, which is that Trump is functional and Biden is not even close.
You wouldn't enjoy that?
You wouldn't enjoy Democrats slowly realizing that you've been right about everything.
If you were watching Fox News yesterday, you saw they delightfully or delightedly showed clips of prominent Democrats saying, uh, maybe we were wrong about this, you know, this Biden being ready to go.
You know, maybe the, Maybe his age is a factor, right?
So watching the slow opening up of their minds, or at least pretending to open up, maybe they knew all along, it's going to be hilarious.
When I watched Morning Joe, you know, come around to the Republican opinion on crime, it was.
It was crime.
I guess the topic was crime.
So now the Democrats are saying, hey, we should do something about crime.
And hey, we should do something about the border.
You tell me you don't want to watch an election where the Democrats themselves are saying, I can't even support the Democrat because the border is open and crime is taking over the city.
How can I be on that team?
I want to watch it.
I want Biden to be the candidate.
There's no chance he can win at this point.
Let me say that clearly.
There's no chance Biden can win.
I mean, they would actually have to kill Trump at this point.
You couldn't even cheat that much.
But by Election Day, the gap is going to be so big.
Unless Trump does something so amazingly wrong.
But I think Trump has figured out now that just staying out of trouble is all he needs.
He just needs to bring the temperature down and not look scary.
Trump has one job.
One job only.
Don't look scary.
Don't look like an authoritarian.
Do you know what an authoritarian would have said about abortion?
An authoritarian would have said, I'm going to do a federal ban on all abortions.
And then you'd be right back where you were, where he's the dictator who wants to take control of women's bodies.
And you lose.
And you lose.
That's a guaranteed loss.
100% guaranteed loss would be Trump saying he wants a federal ban on all abortions.
No way he wins.
In fact, I would stop even being interested in the race at that point.
I would actually lose all interest because you would know what would happen.
The Democrats would knowingly elect a corpse before they would let a federal ban on abortion.
They would knowingly, with complete awareness of what they were doing, elect an actual corpse if that was their option.
And that's not a joke.
You think Scott Galloway was talking about banning TikTok before I was?
You better do a fact check on that.
Why don't you do a little fact check on that?
Yeah.
That's funny.
It's funny that you would even think that.
All right.
That's all I got for today.
And I'm going to be Let's see what's tonight.
I'll probably be on Man Cave tonight for the local people.
