My new book Reframe Your Brain, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/3bwr9fm8
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Free Speech Myth, Open Border Terrorists, CNN Fake Trump News, Capitol Hill Survival, Zuby, Trump Gag Order Suspended, George Floyd Update, Derek Chauvin, TDS, Scott Ritter, Israel Hamas War, Pro-Hamas Germany, Greta Thunberg's Octopus, Pat Buchanan, American Empire, Biden Loan Repayment, 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 Human Civilization, which is now available only on Locals, because all the other platforms are broken today, for reasons that I could figure out.
I spent all of my time trying to do it and did lots of live streams that didn't work until it did, and I tried every single thing.
But I don't have time to do that this morning, so today it's all you.
If you'd like to take your experience up a level.
All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of dopamine at the end of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Ah.
So good.
So, so good.
Well, Italian politics is more fun than ours.
I don't know if you do this, but the Italian Prime Minister, Giorgio Malani, she publicly broke up with her partner over lewd behavior on his television show.
I guess he's a host on some newsy entertainment show.
And he was seen off camera, but the camera was on.
Hitting on a co-worker and asking if he could play with his genitals while he talked to her.
So that was the boyfriend of Italy's Prime Minister.
So she dumped his ass after several years together and a child.
And she's like, done with that guy.
I've got a feeling that's not the first time he ever flirted.
Just in, Israel has decided to Um, shut down some news bureaus, I think Al Jazeera.
So they're going to shut down Al Jazeera access.
Uh, they got rid of that channel in Israel.
Now, do you remember when you thought that free speech was a real thing?
I think this is the year that I finally realized, Hey, it was never real.
It was never real.
Yeah, no, it turns out that nobody ever had free speech.
The only free speech anybody has is to be uninteresting to the government.
That's it.
As soon as the government is interested, they say, well, we have free speech, but I have to change this one thing because there's a reason.
How hard is it for them to come up with a reason?
They just have to be interested.
So.
We've always had this illusion that we had free speech because we could say things that agreed with the government.
And then we're like, yeah, you can word it any way you want.
It's free.
So anyway, we don't have free speech in America.
Israel doesn't have free speech.
And nobody has free speech in a time of war.
You know, as soon as a war breaks out, that's the end of free speech.
It will always be thus.
Bill Maher is being tough on colleges.
He's basically, his advice to young people is don't go to college, because it makes you dumber.
And then he gave lots of reasons, such as supporting Hamas.
So I don't think we need to go into that, but it's just interesting that Bill Maher is saying it directly and out loud, that the colleges are broken, and they're not making you better people.
So Joe Rogan is talking about how the risk That our open borders are letting in lots of terrorists makes it almost kind of predictable that we're going to have some kind of terror attack that looks a lot like Hamas attacking Israel.
Now, the interesting part about that is that Elon Musk replied to an ex-post about that, and Musk said that given that the border is wide open as a matter of policy by the current administration, It is simply a matter of time before this happens, if it has not happened already.
Happened meaning lots of terrorists coming in to attack the country.
Now, you agree with that, right?
What else could happen?
It's not like there are two things that could happen.
In our current situation, if you allow people to come in just because they claimed asylum, how do you not have major terrorist attacks?
What would be any way that could not happen?
I can't think of one.
The weird thing about this is that it's right in front of us.
And yet, on the X platform, somebody replied to me saying that it's a myth that the border is open.
In 2023, somebody said that's a myth.
And they pointed to that Axios article.
And the Axios article
Basically ignored the asylum part of it and just talked about how the you know, the border security and fencing is better than it was How do people watching this topic not know that the real problem is the people were coming in completely legally But shouldn't all they have to do is say asylum and come in the front door and we just say come on in Get back to us in seven months and somehow There are people who don't know that
The most important thing.
That they don't have to sneak across the border.
They just say, asylum.
Here's my name.
See you in seven months.
Or not.
All right.
So that's happening.
The complete abandonment of security for the country.
There was a big rally last night in support of the Palestinians in New York City.
And I saw a video of it.
It was a big, big crowd supporting the Palestinians in Gaza.
I'm no expert on fundraising, but wouldn't that be the perfect place to raise funds to donate to the Palestinians in Gaza?
I mean, I would just be collecting money like crazy, because these people not only care, but they care enough to give up their evening, Friday night, and go out and march in the weather and everything.
So those are people who really care.
I would ask them for their money.
Or is it possible that they don't have money, And they think that somebody else should be paying that money.
I'm just wondering.
I don't know.
But yeah, let's, in fact, I was thinking of organizing rallies that support the innocent Palestinians, not the Hamas, but the ones who were just victims in Gaza.
I should organize some big demonstrations in their behalf and collect money from all the participants.
Is that a good idea?
I think it's a great idea.
All right.
There's more CNN porn about Trump.
Now, CNN porn is when CNN reports a story, it puts a spin on it that sounds like the walls are closing in on Trump.
And then all the readers read it and go, oh, oh, I got it now.
Walls are closing in.
So the latest walls are closing in story.
Which my smart Democrat friend, I've mentioned a lot, my smart Democrat friend immediately texted me to say that this lawyer, Kenneth Chesebro, Cheesebro?
Really?
Is he a Cheesebro?
I hope it's Chesebro.
I'd hate to think he's sort of a Cheesebro.
Hey, got some Gouda?
Cheesebro?
Got some Parmesan over there?
I feel like that's the way it would go if it's Cheese Bro.
I hope it's Chezza Bro or something like that.
But anyway, he's a pro-Trump attorney, and he's one of the ones who was involved with the January 6th, you know, planning to see what they could do about it.
I say without spin.
And he has taken a deal.
Took a deal.
And part of his deal is that he will, he will, he agrees to testify in the Trump trial.
So do you know what the Democrats say when they hear that somebody who worked with Trump is getting ready to testify?
Honestly?
Here's what the Democrats do.
Oh God.
Since we know he's guilty, we're going to start with the result.
Because that's how they think.
They don't have the whole cause and effect thing worked out quite in their minds.
So they start with the end point.
He's definitely guilty.
Because he's Trump.
And Trump is guilty.
And he's Trump.
So therefore, ipso facto QED, he's Trump and he's guilty and he's Trump, so therefore he's guilty.
Sorry, we'll start with that as our assumption.
And then we'll see what happens today.
There's a lawyer who knows the good stuff.
He knows the truth.
He's going to be testifying about Trump, who, because he's Trump, must be guilty, and he's guilty because he's Trump.
Therefore, logically, this lawyer will have bad stuff to say about him.
Because that's part of his plea deal.
He has to tell the truth.
So he'll tell the truth, and the truth will be bad for Trump.
Because Trump is bad.
Because he's bad.
Yeah.
I actually had to deal with that yesterday.
You know what the real story is?
We have no idea.
We have no idea what the real story is.
But I'll tell you what it looks like to me.
My non-TDS eyes.
No, maybe I have a bias in the other direction.
Totally possible.
I wouldn't know it if it were the case.
But here's what it looks like.
It looks like both Sidney Powell and Kenneth Chisbrough were way overcharged, and now the prosecutors are reversing it because it wasn't sustainable.
So they just brought it down to the minimum thing that somebody would say yes to, just to, you know, get it out of their life.
And then he said yes to it.
And that's the whole story.
They were overcharged.
So they pled down to a little thing, said they would tell the truth if they were on trial, which all lawyers say yes to.
You think that there's a working lawyer who's going to say, well, if I testify, I was thinking about maybe not telling the truth.
No.
This story tells you literally nothing about Trump.
Literally nothing.
And there are people who are celebrating it, because they learned literally nothing, but their TDS was triggered, so their dopamine got a hit, and they're just trembling in excitement.
I don't think it's going to turn out the way they think.
That's my prediction.
Well, the Senate Operations Center in Washington, D.C.
had to put out a Long list of suggestions about how not to be killed or robbed if you leave the building in the Capitol Hill area.
Apparently it's so dangerous that you need to be given instructions on surviving walking outdoors.
I'm not joking.
They had to give them survival instructions for walking outdoors locally.
That's real.
There's no exaggeration there.
They had to tell them how to survive just going outdoors because of all the crime.
And among the things they're teaching them is how to surrender their goods.
So they're being taught to peacefully give over their car to the carjackers.
That's the advice.
Yeah.
So they're actually being taught to surrender to the criminals.
Okay.
In a totally unrelated story, Do you know Zuby?
Everybody knows Zuby from the X-Platform and other places.
He's a rapper.
He's a political philosopher.
All-around good guy.
And he posted this today.
He said, if you can't help someone with a victim mentality, then distance yourself from them.
If you can't help someone with a victim mentality, you should distance yourself from them.
You know what I thought when I read that?
I thought, you know, I wish I'd worded it that way.
While being black, I wouldn't have been cancelled.
But you know, Zuby is saying exactly what I said.
He just says it better.
I got cancelled globally for saying what Zuby can post anytime he wants.
What's the difference?
Oh.
Yeah, I'm starting to think there might be a pattern here.
Well, I love the story about Trump's gag order, where he's not supposed to say bad things about the prosecutor or the judge or the witnesses in his upcoming case.
But apparently there was still some reference to a mean tweet that was on his campaign website.
Now, the mean tweet had been deleted, or it was actually the truth.
The mean truth from his truth network had been deleted.
So he was complying with the gag order, but apparently there was an oversight and they didn't realize it was still on some page on the campaign page.
And so he gets fined $5,000 for something that nobody really thought was intentional.
$5,000.
Now, of course, you know, that doesn't hurt him.
But would anybody else have been fined $5,000?
Wouldn't the more logical thing to be, hey, there's this thing that you should also take care of.
Maybe you missed it.
So can you take care of this by tomorrow?
Or I'll have to fine you.
Don't you think that's the way that should have played out?
Given that it was obvious that it looked like an oversight, because it was taken down where you could see it easily, but it was left up where Somebody didn't notice.
Why would you fine somebody for that?
Who's better off for that?
Is the public protected?
I don't see how.
If you gave him a day to take it down, and he didn't take it down, you could still fine him.
It's so obvious that this is just targeted weaponization.
Like, even in small ways that aren't really going to hurt Trump at all.
But it's obvious that it's just they're using it as a weapon.
You wouldn't do this For somebody who is just an ordinary citizen who maybe didn't know that there was still something they needed to address.
That's it.
Well, now I guess the gag order is suspended or temporarily frozen because Trump is fighting it in court.
So the judge said, well, we'll suspend it while you're fighting it.
So there's a little update on the George Floyd case.
Apparently somebody who was working on the prosecution is spilling the juice that apparently when she talked to the coroner, the coroner said there was no indication of asphyxiation, which would have been the murder part, but that the coroner worried what happens when the evidence doesn't match the narrative and people will lose their careers.
So here's the smoking gun.
That the coroner lied to protect himself and all the other people involved.
That's actually in evidence now.
Now, it's still hearsay, right?
So it's still one person telling you their experience and then relaying it to you.
So hearsay has to be put in its, you know, proper place.
You need some confirming evidence.
Well, here's some confirming evidence.
I watched the video a hundred times.
I didn't see anybody get murdered.
Did you?
I saw somebody die of a fentanyl overdose.
That's what I saw.
Now, I saw that from the start.
I never saw anything different, no matter how many times I watched it.
And do you know why I'm pretty sure that it wasn't a murder?
Because Chauvin was doing it in front of people with cameras.
This is one of those few times when you can know for certain what was in his mind.
What was in his mind, for certain, because he was on camera, talking to the people who were filming him live.
He didn't think he was breaking a law then.
Clearly.
Because he did it calmly and coolly in front of lots of people under the, you know, under the power of law.
There's no way any human being acts that way if they believe they're murdering somebody in front of a whole bunch of witnesses who are filming.
It's not like he thought he'd get away.
What, was he gonna change his name and run away?
No, this is one of those few times you can be completely certain that he was not aware that there was, you know, that it looked like murder.
There's also the question that I saw somebody say, that once the suspect is taken into custody, the well-being of that suspect is the responsibility of the officers.
And indeed, some of the other officers were warning Chauvin that there might be a problem.
So given that he was responsible, and given that Floyd was complaining and the other officers were concerned, that should have been enough, say some.
To make it still Chauvin's responsibility and his fault.
You know what I say?
I say he asked him if he was on drugs and Floyd said no.
When Floyd said no, he killed himself.
That's it.
Had he said yes, all of the officers would have been trained to know that the problem might be more medical than they first thought.
Had he said, yes, I have fentanyl in my system and I don't know how much, and I'm having trouble breathing.
Do you think they would have treated it the same if he had not lied to them about his medical situation?
So people are saying he kept saying I couldn't breathe, which was a accurate thing he said about his health.
But he also said something that killed him, which is he didn't have drugs in him.
Now, do I think that Chauvin or a different officer Could have been smart enough to still put together the facts and keep him alive.
Maybe.
Maybe.
But that's not what he was charged with.
To me, it looked like he was charged because he was white, people were afraid of the reaction, and that's always been obvious.
Now, I thought, when this new news came out, Tucker Carlson was the one reporting it, making it a big deal.
I thought everybody knew that it wasn't a murder and that Chauvin was just being railroaded for being white.
I thought everybody knew that, so it didn't strike me as new news.
Anyway, here's something that I see a lot of, that black people in particular literally don't believe white men when they tell them their own personal experience.
So a comment on this was from somebody named Cliffside on the X platform.
He says, uh, about the George Floyd story says, well, I was treated to nearly 80 hours of racial training in a one year period.
Watched my employer nearly double the racial quotas.
So two years of hiring, not a single white male, and then got laid off to make way as stated in one such training quote, it's your turn to suffer.
And immediately somebody said, said that never happened.
Now, I don't know if this specific thing never happened, but do you imagine this is a story of a great weirdness?
No, this is the ordinary experience of white men in America for the last 30 years.
It's all like this.
It's like this all the time.
Do you know why you didn't know about it?
If you're black, do you know why you don't know about it?
Because people are afraid to tell you.
They're afraid to tell you.
All of us.
We're all afraid to tell you.
And should be.
It's not an irrational fear.
It's a very rational fear, so people just shut up.
I'll tell you, the one thing that I've totally been trained off of is the idea that you can't make a whole bunch of people act one way if they know it's fake, or if they know they're all lying.
You can't make tons of people just act the same way.
There's always going to be somebody who will dissent.
No, not when money's involved.
When money's involved, people just go the same way.
And everybody knew that their careers and their livelihoods and their families were at risk if they said what they saw with their own eyes, which is obviously not a murder.
All right.
All right.
Christopher Rufo posted this.
He said, I almost feel pity for the BLM era gurus.
Ibram Kendi, Patrice Cullors, Robin DiAngelo, and Sean King.
The establishment desperately wanted to summon moral figureheads for their racial reckoning, and all they could find was a rogues gallery of intellectually vapid scam artists.
So, yeah.
Turns out that the leaders of the movements were largely just scam artists, so we know that now.
Alright, I've got a question for people who suffer from TDS.
Is there anybody here who suffers from TDS?
Anybody else?
Probably you're all cured if you're on this platform.
But here's a question.
If I needed some cash, and I told you I wanted to, quote, find a bank with an ATM.
I want to find a bank with an ATM.
Can I be indicted for attempted bank robbery?
Because I wanted to find a bank with an ATM.
Because find in that context means rob the bank, doesn't it?
Wait, wouldn't you interpret it that way?
I thought like find the votes means do something illegal.
Find an ATM at a bank would be rob the ATM.
I don't know how else to interpret it.
So never ever say to your friends you'd like to find a bank with an ATM because you're just admitting you want to rob a bank.
Now I ask you this.
How is it possible that half of the country could be convinced that the word find meant do a crime but only in this one phone call and doesn't mean anywhere else?
How was that done?
Easily.
You watched videos of Derek Chauvin not murdering anybody, and people were convinced they saw him being murdered.
It's really easy.
It turns out you can convince half the country of actually anything.
Anything.
Half the country still thinks they have free speech.
Quite obviously you don't.
Quite obviously that went away a long time ago.
Do they still see it?
Yeah, you can make people believe they see anything.
Now, here's a question that's been bugging me lately, because sometimes I'll find myself getting into a, you could call it a debate, but to me it's more like a diagnosis, in which somebody will make wild, TDS-related claims about Trump that are just clearly debunked, just like the most debunked, obviously not true stuff.
And I will sometimes say, Alright, here's a situation where you should just trust me on this.
Not because of my political opinion, because you could disagree on that, but you should trust that I'm an expert on identifying somebody who's in cognitive dissonance and is suffering from brainwash.
That's actually my area of, you know, special interest and expertise.
And so I'm telling you, dear sir, that although you think you're operating under logic, Nothing you're saying right now makes sense.
You're normally actually a logical, reasonable person, but on this one topic, you've departed from your normal IQ and reasonableness.
And I, as an expert, someone who knows what a hypnotized person looks like, I'm telling you that it's very obvious you're operating from a brainwashed, cognitive dissonance kind of a situation, and that there's no actual debate happening.
You know how that goes over?
Usually I get insulted and, you know, turned away.
Yeah.
Because people, once they realize they have the medical problem, which it is in my mind, in my mind, that's a medical problem.
If you have TDS.
It's like any other emotional or psychological phenomenon.
If it's affecting your life, and it clearly does for a lot of people.
That's a medical problem.
So I keep finding myself in situations where the other person thinks they're having a debate.
This happened to me yesterday, actually, that my Democrat friend believed he was having a debate.
And I thought to myself, there's no debate.
You're having some kind of a weird psychological phenomenon.
And I'm telling you, I'm telling you you're having a psychological problem.
You think you're having a debate?
There's nothing like that happening.
All right.
Anyway, believe hypnotists when they tell you you're hypnotized.
Scott Ritter.
Are you familiar with that name?
Scott Ritter.
He was famous as a weapon of mass destruction guy looking for those in Iraq.
Yeah, he was a weapons inspector.
And now he talks mostly about how Russia is definitely going to win in Ukraine, and we don't realize it, which makes him look like a Russian propagandist.
Now, many people would say he's just a Russian propagandist.
Well, now he's talking about... I will just say he looks exactly like one.
That's all I know, right?
Yeah, he works for Russia today.
He writes for the Russian newspaper, basically.
So yes, all indications, and my personal observation, all indications are that he's working for the other team.
I don't know that for sure.
I would just say he presents himself in every way like somebody who's on another team.
But he's saying that Israel will lose if it goes into Gaza, and that the Israeli military is actually not very good.
There are just some units like Special Forces who are very good, but if you look at the General Army, not really that strong.
He says that Hezbollah would beat them straight up.
If Hezbollah went after Israel, it would just destroy the Israeli military.
I don't believe that.
That doesn't sound real to me.
But I'm just telling you what he's saying in public, okay?
I also don't believe that Israel is so dumb that they would go into Gaza with a traditional urban warfare.
I feel like that would be stupid, and no matter what the quality of their military is, they're not stupid.
To me, it would just be stupid to go door-to-door and be booby-trapped to death.
Why would they do that?
I think they will just destroy everything as they go.
And just stay behind the line of destruction.
And just shrink the real estate that the bad guys can be in until they just control them.
And then, you know, drop them other old bombs in the middle and be done with it.
I don't think they're going to be knocking on any doors.
Now when I say any, of course there will be some.
But I think one of the reasons that they're waiting is that they never planned to go in fast in the first place.
That's my guess, right?
Because remember, military operations are all about deception.
My guess is they did not plan to go in already.
It looks like, from the outside, it looks like maybe public opinion and something about negotiating for the hostages is delaying.
Here's what I predict.
A whole bunch of delays for different reasons.
Uh, well, we'll give you a couple more days because we're negotiating some more releases.
Uh, well, we're waiting for a couple of assets to show up before we go in.
Uh, well, we thought we'd do some more training about how to go in.
Just get everybody sharp before we go in.
I feel like it's not going to happen.
They're definitely going to control Gaza.
They're definitely going to eliminate Hamas.
Well, I don't think it's going to be in the most traditional way that we expect them to do it.
I think it'll be clever.
And I think everything we've seen so far is part of that cleverness.
I don't think it's just being slow.
Now, I could be completely wrong by the end of today.
If they go in hard and traditionally, then I'm completely wrong, and you get to tell me that tomorrow.
Now remember, I have gotten these military things wrong.
I said Putin wouldn't Wouldn't go into Ukraine because it would be such a bad idea.
Well, I was right that it was a bad idea on some level.
You know, Putin might still come out ahead, so I guess it would be good on that level.
But I didn't think he could take Kiev.
So at least I was right about that.
All right.
Germany apparently has big pro-Hamas gatherings.
Some are saying that the German news are running a blackout so that the public is not aware of how big it is.
Someone else said that they just landed in Germany the other day.
They're not seeing a whole bunch of problems.
So maybe the news, maybe our news is exaggerating it.
Maybe Germany is downplaying it.
Hard to know.
Basically, you can't believe anything at this point.
But as other people have said, and I agree, I'm pretty sure Europe is lost in the sense that I think it will go Islamic and probably radical.
So I think Germany will be lost entirely, is my guess.
And I blame Hitler.
I blame Hitler.
Because do you think that Germany would have been so pro-immigration if they didn't have the legacy of trying to, let's say, Make things right for the Hitler era.
I think this is literally the last play of Hitler to destroy the country.
They had such overwhelming guilt, or maybe it was public relations in part, but they basically painted themselves in a corner.
The end result is they either have to, well, I'll just say it directly.
They either have to recreate Hiller or they lose.
And I think they're going to choose losing.
I don't think they're going to recreate Hiller, meaning that they would have to get rid of the immigrants based primarily on their demographic.
I can't imagine that happening.
You're writing a new book called Blame Hiller.
You know, quoting Norm Macdonald, The more I find out about Hitler, the more I don't like him.
It's a Norm Macdonald joke.
All right, well, did you see the scandal about Greta Thunberg and the octopus?
So Greta posed for a picture with some other pro-Palestinian people in support of the Palestinian people.
But she made the mistake of, if it was a mistake, of having a little toy octopus wither by her shoulder.
And I learned this yesterday.
I was not aware that an octopus is an anti-Semitic symbol.
Because apparently there are some images of the planet Earth with what some would call the Jewish octopus strangling the Earth.
I've never seen that before.
So I learned yesterday that if you put an octopus in your photo, don't talk about Israel or the Palestinians.
Octopus is okay.
Talking about the Middle East?
Fine.
But don't do them both.
No octopus plus Middle East.
You'll be blamed for being anti-Semitic.
Now, I think she said it's a toy that people who have trouble with their emotions have, which you can turn it inside out and it smiles, but you turn it the other way and it frowns.
It's a way for people who are not good at expressing their emotions to signal what their mood is, in case people can't tell.
Does that sound likely?
You buying that?
Here's what I think.
I think Greta is way, way, way too smart to have done it intentionally, because it wouldn't have helped her cause, would it?
Now, no matter what you think of her opinions on climate change, She's at least smart.
Would you give me that?
Would you give me that she's smart?
She likes attention, but she's smart.
I don't think anybody smart would put a known anti-Semitic symbol in a photo unless she was going to fully commit to being anti-Semitic.
Nobody does that while trying to maintain a non-antisemitic image.
Nobody would do that.
How many of you think she did it intentionally?
You have to pass the really test.
Really?
Really?
It doesn't pass the really test.
All right, for those of you who think she did it intentionally, I'm a hypnotist, and I'm telling you that you're suffering from something right now.
There isn't any chance it was intentional.
There really wasn't.
there was no chance that was intentional.
I think you have to check your bias if you think that was intentional.
Now, here's my argument.
My argument goes like this.
Number one, I'm a hypnotist, and so I can recognize when you're operating irrationally.
There's nobody with her capabilities who would think that was anything except the worst idea anybody had to put a known anti-Semitic symbol in her photo.
Nobody ever would do that.
Even if, even if she's anti-Semitic, which I have no evidence to suggest she is.
Even if she is, no, she would not do that.
Now, if you say, but, you know, Ilan Omar might do it, well, sure.
Well, sure, that's not really the same thing, is it?
She's a pawn?
She may be a pawn, but she's not stupid.
Nobody in the world would put a known anti-Semitic symbol in a public photo that was intended to be a public photo.
Nobody ever, ever, unless that was their brand and they were trying to tell you that that's who they were.
She's obviously not doing that.
What if she didn't know I assume she didn't know.
Yeah, I just assume she didn't know.
She does what she's been told to do?
Well, maybe.
I mean, I would certainly believe that somebody tried to trick her.
If somebody tried to trick her, that would be just sort of ordinary.
To me, I would say, oh, OK, that makes sense.
Somebody just put it there.
Or somebody saw it and did know its meaning, maybe one of the friends, and said, hey, you know, it would be funny, you should put your octopus in there.
It's possible it was a trick.
But no, I don't believe there's any chance that she intended it that way.
None.
And can we acknowledge that I'm not a supporter of Greta?
I think she's a malign, very dangerous force in the world.
I think she's very dangerous.
I'm not on her side, right?
It would be easy for me to be against her because I oppose her on some other topic, but this time, no.
No, I gotta go against the fake news on this one.
David Sachs, interestingly, posted some thoughts by Patrick Buchanan, now passed away, but famous, a famous, very provocative and controversial Republican.
And here's something that he wrote in one of his books before he passed, Patrick Buchanan.
He said, at the opening of the 20th century, there were five great Western empires, the British, French, Russian, German, and Austro-Hungarian.
And two emerging great powers, Japan and the United States.
By century's end, all the empires had disappeared.
How did they perish?
By war.
All of them.
So Patrick Buchanan points out that the only reason that America survived as the sole superpower is that we had a geographic advantage and we stayed out of the big land wars.
And that was it.
Like there wasn't anything else special about us.
Compared to Europe, except we stayed out of the wars.
And it basically explains everything else.
Why do we do so well economically?
And here we are putting ourselves into one and maybe two land wars.
So that's a cautionary tale.
It does seem like we're going to spend ourselves into oblivion.
So if we became not a superpower, that would be a big reason why.
Just supporting wars.
All right, well, there's another accusation from Comer and the Republicans about the Biden, so-called Biden crime family.
So they have in their possession, the Republicans do, a copy of a $200,000 check that Joe Biden's brother James gave him.
Now, it's allegedly a loan, received a loan for the exact amount That James Biden had just gotten some money for.
So there's a speculation or assumption.
Wait, Buchanan's still alive?
That can't be.
Really?
Why do I so clearly remember him dying?
Huh, that's a fake memory?
Wow, that's cool.
If you ever have the experience of having a fake memory, like I am having right now, because I very specifically remember him dying.
But I'll take your word for it that he's alive.
So I'm having like a fake memory of like a really clean one.
A really clean memory of it.
Like I remember it specifically.
And I guess it didn't happen.
So when this happens, here's what you should do.
You should do what I'm doing right now.
You should first of all, Marvel in it, that you could have a complete memory of a thing that didn't happen.
And the second thing you could do is ask yourself how often that's happening and you didn't know it.
If I had not looked up, I would have finished this still thinking he was dead.
Right?
So it's only a coincidence that I happened to... Oh, maybe it was Pat Robertson.
Maybe that's what I confused.
Yeah.
James Buchanan is dead.
Okay, wise-ass.
Anyway, so back to this Biden story.
So Comer thinks he may have the goods that would show a money flow.
Am I still alive?
But I didn't see it.
To me, the coincidence of the $200,000 that went to Joe Biden, which is the same day that the brother got $200,000 for something, it could be exactly what it looks like, an illegal payment for influence of some kind.
It could just as easily be that the brother owed him some money, or he needed a loan, and he just passed on the money that he just got because it was free cash that had not been invested anywhere else.
So I would say it's well short, yeah, the same amount.
Because if somebody said, I mean, imagine a family situation.
Your brother says, you know, I'm in a bind, I need $200,000.
I'm not saying this is what happened.
I'm just broadening your imagination.
Let's say somebody said, you know, I need $300,000.
And then your brother says, well, I just got $200,000 in cash.
My other stuff is invested, but I'll tell you what, I'll just give this $200 to you, you can figure out how to pay off the other $100 in other ways, and then let me know when you can pay it back.
Maybe.
So, the thing is, unless you hear the other side of the story, you could have all kinds of suspicions, as we do.
I mean, it would be obviously right to be suspicious.
But it's not, it's not quite, it's like the gun has steam coming off it but not smoke.
It might be telling us something, but it also might not.
And you know what I say about that?
I've got a famous saying I say in these situations.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Because both James Biden and Joe Biden are individuals, and even Joe Biden is innocent until proven guilty, and I don't call this proof.
I call this an indication of you ought to look into it.
Maybe it would be enough for an indictment, you know, in some world that would be enough, but certainly no proof of illegality.
