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, Elon Musk, Wikipedia Dickipedia, Matt Gaetz, Omnibus Stalled, President Trump, Gaza Terrorist Tunnels, Israel Hamas War, Trump's Brainwashing Campaign Ad, Trump Reframe, Oliver Stone, JFK Documentary, Dr. Robert Epstein, Ephemeral Ads, Deprogramming Democrats, Mitch McConnell, Ukraine Funding, 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
Alright, I'm not happy with Twitter, so I'm signing off.
Alright.
Twitter is off.
because the interface is too stupid.
Doo doo doo doo doo doo.
Doo doo doo doo.
But, How's the sound on YouTube?
YouTube, you got a sound?
Everybody good?
Two iPads.
Now, YouTube, you missed all my bitching this morning, because of all the Twitter problems in the world, I couldn't sign on to Twitter this morning.
Don't know why.
No idea.
But, if you'd like your day to go up to levels that are much better than my day so far, All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank of Chelsea style, 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 the dopamine today.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Go.
Yes, we're broadcasting on Locals.
And on YouTube, I've given up on Rumble until they make some technical changes.
And apparently I can't make Twitter work because the interface is too stupid.
But I'll keep working on that.
How about the news?
Anybody want to hear about some news?
All right.
My first story is what I call Employee of the Month.
Employee of the Month.
This is apparently a real story.
Back in 1945, a gentleman named Tsutomu Yamaguchi, he survived the atomic blast at Hiroshima.
He actually survived the blast.
He dragged himself to an open air, to an air raid shelter, spent the night, and then he caught the morning train so he could arrive at his job on time.
His job was in Nagasaki.
Nagasaki.
Where he survived a second atomic blast.
You just can't kill that fucking guy.
I don't know if he's still alive.
I have a feeling he's immortal.
He might be the unluckiest person who ever lived.
But he might also be immortal.
He might still be around.
But anyway, I call that Employee of the Month.
Employee of the Month.
So if there had been maybe three atomic blasts, he could be Employee of the Year.
But, you know, we don't want to, you don't want to just give away these honors.
You've got to earn them.
Well, if there's one thing I love Elon Musk for, it's inventing interstellar travel.
No, that's not what I love him for.
He's doing that too.
I love him for being the richest man in the world and not being above making dick jokes on social media.
Now that's why I love him.
If you could be the richest person in the world and still like making dick jokes, you know, unabashedly, with no apology whatsoever.
You can't get any better than that.
That's like your ultimate billionaire.
But anyway, he posted, so I guess he doesn't like Wikipedia.
I'm figuring this out in context.
Apparently Wikipedia has some facts that he doesn't think are accurate about himself.
Have I ever mentioned that all news about public figures is fake?
Including Wikipedia.
I don't know if it's still there, but Wikipedia used to have some awards that I'd never even heard of, that apparently I'm the winner of.
I won some awards.
Didn't even know about it.
So, yeah.
So Elon Musk talking about Wikipedia, he said, and you never know if this is serious, because it might actually be serious.
He said, "I will give them a billion dollars if they change their name to Dickopedia." He's literally the only person in the world who could say this sentence, "I'll give you a billion dollars if you change your name to Dickopedia." And you say to yourself, would he really?
Would he really?
Would he actually literally write a check for a billion dollars?
And here's the funny part.
I don't know.
I don't know.
Might.
It would be the funniest thing anybody ever did.
That might be worth a billion dollars to him if he had a few extra billions.
You never know.
Anyway.
Well, I would like to thank Matt Gaetz again for doing the best thing that's ever happened to Congress, which is make them ineffective so that they can't spend any more of my money on other people.
Ever since Matt Gaetz led his insurrection to get rid of the Speaker, I have not spent one extra penny on people I didn't want to spend money on.
This is the best few weeks of my American life so far.
Thank you, Matt Gaetz.
Now, I know what you're thinking to me, but Scott, Scott, Scott, what about all the normal business that's been delayed?
Well, those are big problems.
Let me read some of the big problems from the delay of not having a speaker.
Okay, there are no problems.
But there could have been.
Huh?
There could have been.
So just remember that.
There could have been a problem.
Alright, well it seems like progress, so let's keep going.
In my opinion, the biggest existential threat to the world is omnibus bills.
An omnibus where they take all the separate spending packages and put them into one big Frankenstein monster so that nobody can say no.
Because they say no, their own little pork won't get approved, and they like their pork more than they like the country, or the world.
So in my opinion, we have a system, the current system, which would guarantee that all bills become these omnibus bills, which further guarantees that the deficit continues to skyrocket, which further guarantees the destruction of the economy, which guarantees the destruction of America, Which largely guarantees that the whole world will go into chaos.
So, in my opinion, Matt Gaetz is the only force preventing the worst thing in the world.
The number one danger in the world.
He's got some help.
But basically, this is one guy trying to protect you from the destruction of the world, which is clear and well-defined, and the path to our end is right in front of us.
Hey, hey, would you like to be dead fairly soon?
Well, yes, I would.
How would you do that?
Oh, watch this.
We're going to do one omnibus after another, and then keep your eye on this number.
That's called the total debt.
When it reaches a little bit further, Well then you're all dead.
Everything falls apart.
Would you like that?
Yes I would!
Sign me up for that!
That's what we've been doing until now.
Sign me up for definite, no doubt about it, destruction of all civilization.
Sign me up.
And only one fucking person said no to it.
Matt Gaetz.
Now some other people joined him, but I think basically he's the driver here.
So...
Do I want a speaker?
No.
No, I do not want a speaker under the condition that there's even a possibility that that speaker would push forward an omnibus bill.
No omnibus bill or no speaker.
Pick one.
Totally on board with that.
Well, here's a dog that continues to not bark.
I'm trying to imagine a world in which Trump being the number one news maker of all time, and of course the person who gets all the clicks going on the left if he does anything, and he's got all these legal charges against him and we've been yapping about him forever, right?
So it's always been big, big news every time there's a new charge against Trump, every time he's in court.
Big, big news.
But now that it seems like all of the charges are sort of out there, there's a little more transparency.
And we're seeing, for example, two of his lawyers take plea deals.
And the left is just masturbating furiously to that, saying, oh, plea deals!
That means they're gonna testify against Trump!
Doesn't look like that.
Maybe.
I mean, it's not impossible.
But it looks far more like they were both so overcharged that it just had to be unwound, because it would have been by some higher court anyway.
So it looked like they were just reducing their embarrassment by taking the charges down to something that could be pled out, and then it was.
So here's my question.
Why If Trump is the likely nominee, according to the polls, and he's the biggest problem in the world, according to the left, and the left controls their own news networks, why aren't they talking about him maybe going to jail every single day?
Wouldn't that be just the biggest, biggest news thing?
You know, shouldn't they be doing stories about what he would look like if he had to wear the jumpsuit?
Right?
Right?
Don't you think that they'd be doing all kinds of stories about specifically which jail would he go to?
Right?
Because where do presidents go to jail?
Don't you think that should be a story?
What would happen if he's in jail and wins the election?
Isn't that a story?
You don't think people would click on that?
Of course they would.
So where's the story?
Why is the biggest story that's not a war?
You know, the wars are obviously bigger stories at the moment.
But even below that, there's still other news, but it's not this.
Do you know why I think?
Here's why I think.
I think the news knows that these charges aren't real.
And they know that they're not going to stick.
And if they did stick at the trial level, they would get overturned at the Supreme Court.
Because these are very clearly not legitimate uses of the Department of Justice.
These are very clearly political prosecutions.
And you also saw that Trump's popularity went up instead of down.
He's now dominating all polls against everybody.
The less he says.
He's been unusually quiet, you know, by Trump's standards.
I tell you, the less he says.
Put that gag order on him.
There should be a gag order for everything that you don't want him talking about.
So yes, that dog is really not barking.
Not making a big deal of that story anymore.
All right.
There's a reframe in my book that all of you should have by now.
Reframe your brain.
It's one of my favorite ones.
And this will just show you how powerful reframes are.
Both in your personal life, your business life, and everything else.
And the reframe is this.
Your boss is not in charge.
The best idea is always in charge.
Or the person with the best idea is always in charge.
And here's what I mean by that.
If your boss had a bad idea and said, well, I don't have a better idea, but this is the best idea we have, so we're going to do this.
Then you raised your hand and said, oh, I've got a better idea.
And then you explain your better idea.
And let's say it's just obvious it's a better idea.
What's your boss going to do?
Is your boss going to say, nope, nope, yeah, it is a better idea, but it's not my idea, so we're going to do my idea.
Sometimes.
But usually, usually if you have a functional boss, they're going to say, oh, okay, I didn't know about that idea, but that's a good idea, we're going to do that.
So who was in charge?
In that scenario, who was in charge?
It was the person with the idea.
Because the idea is more powerful than the labels, you know, the titles.
So never think that your boss is in charge.
Your boss is only in charge if you don't have a better idea.
It's sort of a default.
But the primary thing everybody wants, including your boss, is for you to have a better idea than the boss has.
Perfect.
Oh, that's a good idea.
Let's do your idea.
Now, this applies to everything.
It's not just your job.
It would apply to your relationships, but it also applies to the world.
And so, here's where I'm heading.
If you were a public figure and you talked about the news, and you were talking about some big story, and you happened to have the best idea, you'd be in charge of the whole world.
As long as other people also saw it as the best idea.
Now you wouldn't have to implement it, but you'd sort of be in charge.
It was your idea.
So if somebody could come up with a better idea about what Israel should do with their tunnels and with Gaza, that person actually would be controlling the war.
Because at the point, wouldn't you agree that nobody has a good idea?
As I pointed out, if Israel did nothing and left Hamas there, that's obviously a mistake.
If they do something small, well that's not going to get it done, that's a mistake.
If they do something big, it's certainly going to have civilian deaths that seem unreasonable to their enemies.
And then it will be used forever as a weapon against them to organize other forces that might come at them harder than anything has ever come at them.
So they can't do nothing, they can't do a little, and they can't do a lot.
Every one of those paths leads to destruction.
And, on top of that, they've got Biden saying, don't go in there and kill a bunch of civilians.
So what do they do?
This is a 100% unsolvable problem.
Right?
If somebody came up with a better idea, they would take it.
Do you know why?
Because it would be a better idea.
And they have no ideas of their own, as far as we know, at least not in public.
So I'm going to give them a better idea.
I'll just take over.
So I'm going to take over this whole Israel-Hamas situation.
Here's the better idea.
You can't wait forever.
Everybody agrees on that.
You can't just sort of surround them and just wait forever.
But here's what you can do, and they might already be doing it.
You could do lots of probing to find out, you know, at least some of the tunnel openings.
You don't have to get them all, but you need to get some of them because they're connected.
So if you get any one of them, in theory, you've got a way to get to the others.
Now, of course, they'd have doors.
So if you tried flooding one, they could presumably close it off if they got there in time.
But here's what I'm suggesting.
It turns out that all of the known solutions, like to the public, don't work.
How many of you say, it's obvious, just flood the tunnels?
Have you looked into that?
Do you know what that would do?
So it turns out that a little bit of seawater added to a little bit of drinking water ruins a lot of drinking water.
Right?
If you put one gallon of just seawater into your drinking source, it would pollute, basically make it undrinkable, a very large portion of it.
The aquifers that are under Gaza are their water source.
If you flood the tunnels, you're also flooding the aquifers.
You're removing from them the ability to drink water locally.
Did you know that?
That's not a small problem.
That's basically making it unlivable forever.
The other problem is that if they do that in the area that would have been agriculture, because some of it is agriculture, it makes it unusable for agriculture.
It can also collapse some things above.
That's not clear.
Depends how deep the tunnels are.
And did you know that Egypt has been flooding tunnels for a long time?
That's how Egypt handles it.
They actually flood the tunnels that are near Egypt.
And, exactly like I said, it ruined their drinking water and they can't grow crops in that area that Egypt is flooding tunnels.
But it does work.
It does work, in a sense.
I mean, it's not an ideal situation and you wouldn't want to do it maybe in the populated areas and, you know, get the whole aquifer.
Alright, so here's my idea.
Follow along and see if these assumptions follow.
Number one, Israel has known about the danger from the Hamas tunnels for decades.
Would you agree?
So it's not sneaking up on them.
Number two, of course you'd agree.
Number two, Israel is a highly advanced military, technologically and every other way.
And they've probably been working on the question of how you clear terrorists from a tunnel for probably 20 or 30 years.
Assumption number three, because I think you're with me so far.
They've known about the tunnels.
They're very capable of looking at threats and figuring out their options.
Assumption number three, whatever options the Israelis have for clearing tunnels would not be necessarily known to the public.
Would you agree with that?
For example, If they have the most kick-ass robot that's designed with... You can imagine an autonomous AI robot with a gigantic shield that just goes down in front and they shoot at it and it just bounces off the shield and then it gases everybody or something.
Puts them to sleep, let's say.
Now, I'm not saying they have a tunnel-clearing robot.
I'm saying they could.
The technology does allow them to have an autonomous terrorist-killing tunnel robot.
Now, it might kill everybody there or gas them to sleep or something, but there's nothing that would stop them from having something like that.
You just wouldn't know about it, would you?
You just wouldn't know.
Now, here's what I think.
I think Israel should not go in fast, and they should not wait forever.
There's a sweet spot of when to go in, and part of it is to make sure that they've controlled entirely the news coming in and out.
You want to completely control the news.
You want to make sure all their phones are dead on the attack side.
And you want to make sure that they're hungry.
So you want everybody to be in a worse situation before you're ready to go in.
But you don't want to go in hard with a normal ground attack.
So here's what I'm going to add.
It should only be as many pinprick attacks as it takes to identify how to solve the tunnels.
In other words, their only military action should be against the tunnels with small surgical teams, maybe special ops or whatever.
And they're just going in and they probably by now completely control the visuals.
So one of the interesting things about Gaza is they don't have a lot of clouds.
So if you've got satellites, US plus whatever Israel has, you have a view from above that can go down to probably, you know, certainly you could spot people.
They probably also have drones.
that now have fixed cameras or floating cameras all over the place.
So they should be able to use their resources to figure out where the team should go in to look for tunnels.
Then you find a bunch of tunnels, and the next thing you do is you test your best idea.
If the best idea is some special gas that they've developed for it, test that.
Maybe it's a special robot.
My idea of tying a rope around Representative Eric Swalwell and just lowering him in and just waiting.
That's just one idea.
They might have better ideas than that.
Like I said, they've been working on it for decades.
We just started thinking about it.
So my take is that Israel is doing exactly the right thing and they may be, they might actually be pretending that Biden is preventing them from going in.
They might be pretending.
Because it might be that the last thing they want to do is a regular ground invasion.
I think they're going to use persuasion, technology, pinpoint teams, and take as long as it takes.
They don't really need to hurry.
And if you said to me, alright, there's one team that's running out of everything, and they're going to try to protect tunnels.
They're going to be in these tunnels where we can find them.
And then another team has nearly infinite resources and technology, smartest people around, and the United States on their side, and all the time in the world to go look for the tunnels and then destroy them.
Time is definitely on Israel's side.
So I would say that using an excuse like, oh, Biden said don't go in, To make it look like, oh, we want to go in.
Man, do we want to go in.
We want to go in so badly.
But you know Biden.
You know how Biden is.
We want revenge.
We want the Israeli people to really feel like their military has their back.
But darn it, Biden's telling us to wait.
I think the waiting is always part of the plan.
I think that Israel would like to be a lot more prepared Specifically for the tunnels and everything else as well.
So we have heard that they might be making some probes.
Israel might be probing to see where the defenses are and to get them to react.
But if Israel keeps probing, and then they keep watching the reaction, they should be able to map out pretty much where everybody is.
And who's bad and who's good and which buildings to make disappear.
So I think that they'll be finding buildings to disappear and checking and trying out innovative.
So here's my best prediction.
When it's done, you're going to find that they tried something in the tunnels that was not flooding them.
They might flood some, but I don't think flooding will be the primary answer.
But it'll be something that you said to yourself, Oh, I didn't know they could do that.
What do you think?
Do you think you'll be surprised when you find out?
Well, actually, we might never even hear.
It's possible we'll never hear how they clear the tunnels, because they might want to keep that to themselves.
You wouldn't want to tell them and then they can build tunnels that would thwart whatever the new technology is.
So you want to keep that secret until you need it.
So that's my take.
If Israel had not thought of the idea of postponing the ground assault Until they had a full A-B test of all the tunnel techniques.
Now they got it.
Now in my opinion, that's the best idea.
Would you agree?
If you heard those options, who would you side with?
Option number one, surround it and just leave them in there.
Option number two, classic ground assault, started pretty soon, lots of casualties.
Or Scott's idea, which is probably already their idea.
So I'm acting like they hadn't thought of it.
But in my world, they've already thought of this, so they're probably doing it anyway.
In my world, they would be probing the tunnels and looking for a better technique, as long as it takes, to get it done with the minimum amount of casualties.
All right.
How many of you saw the new Trump campaign ad about brainwashing?
And about Hillary Clinton wants to deprogram the MAGA people.
And called you a basket of deplorables.
And then brainwashed is actually the word that Trump is using.
Well, here's what I think.
I think this might be the beginning of something really important.
Because we've been in this artificial argument about politics, where we think it's, oh, the Democrats, their policies, and their candidates, oh, and they're saying, oh, those Republicans are bad.
But do you ever wonder if we're just a play?
It's like an illusion.
And what we think is the world is just nothing like the actual world, sort of Matrix-like.
Well, here's what's gonna happen.
You're about to find out.
Now some of you already know what's going on, but the rest of the world might find out.
Here's what Trump can do, and he might be on the way to doing it, that would be the most mind-boggling thing of all time.
Instead of arguing about what is true or false, or what policy works or doesn't, which is almost a waste of time, Because whatever's going on is very tribal and has to do with propaganda and brainwashing.
If he can change the conversation to who's more brainwashed, he wins.
He's changing the playing field.
If he stays in his normal playing field where it's policy, policy, policy, you're a racist, no, you're a racist, all this traditional stuff, he's vulnerable.
But if he takes the argument to, you know, in a literal sense, Democrats are being brainwashed.
Could he make that case?
With a little help?
Well, let's walk through a few things.
And I'll let you know.
So suppose he created this frame where we think we have this thing called a republic or democratic system, but it's never been like that.
And it's always been a trick, and everything's rigged.
Could he sell it?
Do you think he could sell that?
Yeah, he could.
Yeah, he could.
You could.
Let me go through a few things and we'll put this argument together.
But as I posted this morning, I think the path is about to get illuminated.
There is a dark path.
You don't know where it is, but it's about to get illuminated.
And I'm going to start to turn on the lights right now.
I saw a post from Dennis Peterson, a user on the X platform, and he posted this morning, I had a college class that provided telltale signs of brainwashing in commercials.
It recommended developing tools to detect it.
They were called, quote, crap detectors.
I still use it today.
Now, I'm guessing that the person who posted this, Dennis, is a certain age.
Probably not 20.
Because I don't believe colleges teach this anymore.
What do you think?
Do you think a current college course would involve spotting brainwashing?
I don't think so.
I'll bet not.
So, what if you knew that?
Suppose you're a 20-year-old and I say to you, did you know that colleges used to teach you how to spot brainwashing?
But they don't do it anymore?
Did you know it was a skill?
Did you know that your common sense won't help you a bit?
Did you know that if you were brainwashed, you wouldn't know it?
It would help if you'd taken this course, but it's not taught anymore.
Evidence number one.
I will build my case slowly in front of you.
There's an article today getting a lot of attention from Constantine Kissam.
You know him from the Triggernometry podcast.
So he writes in the Free Press, the title of it is, The Day the Delusions Died.
And here's his intro to the article.
He says, A lot of people woke up on October 7th as progressives and went to bed that night feeling like conservatives.
What changed?
Now, of course, that was when Israel was attacked by Hamas.
And his part is that the wokeness was always about power and that we've been asleep at the switch.
Now, when people read this article, do they say, oh, that's a weird, you know, strange thing you're saying that I don't understand at all and doesn't seem to apply?
Or do they say, Well, yes, that's a pretty good description of what happened.
This is another indication, when he says that people woke up as progressives and went to bed as conservatives, that their progressive ideology was not based on reality.
It was based on a version of reality.
That's essentially what is being said.
Because the point is not that this one event, horrible as it was, October 7th, is not that that event changed everything.
It changed how you see everything.
That's a big difference.
It didn't change everything.
It changed how you see everything.
And you can see all the forces are starting to align to reframe the situation as a gigantic psyop.
Not just Israel, but just our whole situation.
Here are some things I would recommend to somebody who is wondering if they are in some kind of a bubble.
I'm going to give you a bunch of things that, if you were to consume them, it would change forever how you thought of your reality.
But first, I recommend this reframe for Trump.
For Trump's campaign.
Now this would also work for Vivek Ramaswamy.
Maybe it just works for Republicans.
But it would work for Trump really well.
And this would be the slogan I'm suggesting.
I'm running to save Democrats from other Democrats.
I'm looking to save Democrats From other Democrats.
He wouldn't even need to explain it, right?
He would not need to explain what that means.
Everybody gets it now.
So there are enough Democrats who understand that, for example, the teachers union Democrats are one of the, maybe the biggest problem in the country right now that's not debt.
That the kids are being brainwashed in a very bad way.
They would also look at the Israel situation and they would watch their fellow Democrats who seemingly aren't as, let's say, on their team as they thought they were.
So I think that frame is very important.
He's not trying to... If you think Trump is on the Republican team and he's against your team, you have a team reflex.
If he says, dudes, I'm trying to save you from your own team.
Do you see this?
Do you see what they're doing?
Because at this point they do.
They do see it.
So you can probably carve off a few people just without framing.
Here are some of the things I would suggest to somebody to wake them up to reality.
You should watch the Oliver Stone.
He came out with a new, I guess you'd call it a documentary, about JFK's murder, assassination.
Now he did a movie about it a long time ago, but he's updating it because there's new materials involved.
But among the other things that you would learn, and I only learned this when I was just starting to watch it, did you know who is the head of the Warren Commission That was the government's effort to totally research what happened in the Kennedy assassination with the most dependable people, like really credible people, and then put together the Warren Commission report.
Well, it turns out that the chairperson was the only one who didn't have another day job.
So, you know, he was available, basically.
So the person who was the chairperson did most of the work.
He did like 30% of all the talking and question answering and stuff like that.
Definitely the most influential person was the chairman.
And who was that chairman?
Alan Dulles.
Does that name sound familiar?
Alan Dulles.
He had been the head of the CIA before that.
And he'd been fired.
Do you know who fired him?
JFK.
Do you know why he fired him?
For trying to run an empire on his own that was independent from the government.
Dulles was out there trying to overthrow countries, assassinate people, without the approval or even the knowledge of the President of the United States.
Do you think that's weird and unusual and historically like crazy?
Well, here's something else to blow your mind.
The FBI was the same situation.
Under J. Edgar Hoover, Hoover basically ran his own empire, and he did not answer the President exactly.
So, JFK had an FBI that was absolutely his enemy, instead of his employee, and a CIA that was absolutely his enemy, not his employees.
And one day he fired the head of the CIA.
Do you know who the number one suspect is for somebody who might have killed Kennedy or ordered it to be done in a conspiracy theory sense?
Who would be the number one suspect?
The number one suspect in the murder is the person the government put in charge of determining who did it.
If you didn't know that, and by the way, I didn't know it until this week, you don't understand anything.
And sure enough, Dulles came up with a report that many people questioned in lots of different ways that Oliver Stone points out in the movie.
There's lots of reasons to believe it wasn't that one shooter.
The best reason is that we have a video of the bullet coming from the other direction.
You can actually see it with your own eyes.
Your own eyes, you can see the bullet hit him in the front and put his head back.
And we were gaslighted as a nation to believe it was the odd effect of a bullet coming in the front and blowing up the front of the head and causing his head to go back because it got hit in the front.
You know what I mean?
In other words, we were told that his head would move in the opposite direction of the bullet.
Well, I'm no expert on people getting shot in the head, I feel like you always move in the direction of the bullet.
I don't think it moves the other way.
And we were gaslighted to think that that most basic, obvious, incorrect thing was the key point.
And that there was one magic bullet that hit the governor and the president at the same time.
Ridiculous things.
You know what would be as ridiculous as the story we were told about Kennedy's assassination?
I'll just give you an example.
Something as ridiculous would be believing that some other president said that neo-Nazis who were marching were fine people.
That would be hard to believe, wouldn't it?
But people did.
They believed that actually happened in the real world.
Half of the country believes that President Trump suggested drinking bleach.
Do you think you couldn't sell somebody that a bullet makes your head move in the direction that the bullet came?
You can apparently convince the public of absolutely anything.
Absolutely anything.
And it started a long time ago.
Yes.
So I would say all the evidence suggests that the CIA working with the Mafia... Oh, did you not know that?
Yeah, the CIA and the Mafia were almost the same group.
Yeah, they worked together for mutual benefit for many years.
Didn't know that, did you?
Well, probably a lot of you did know that.
Here's something else I would tell somebody.
So these are things I would present to somebody if I were trying to wake them up and un-brainwash them.
I wouldn't start with the specific things they don't believe.
So I wouldn't start with the hoax.
I would start with the background to show that citizens of the U.S.
have always been brainwashed.
A lot.
So this So this documentary on JFK would be a good start.
Secondly, I was looking for an interview because I saw it the other day.
Tim Poole was talking to Dr. Robert Epstein about Dr. Epstein's idea that Google specifically is in charge of who gets elected and therefore Trump doesn't have any chance.
And that the polls have nothing to do with anything, and that Google can brainwash you without you knowing it.
They do it using something called ephemeral Ephemeral means something that doesn't stick around or get recorded.
So most of what you do on social media gets somehow recorded in some database.
If you're looking to buy a certain product, somewhere that gets recorded because that's how you get pitched that same product on your other device on another app.
But there are things that happen as you're using social media that don't record it.
They're just things that happen.
For example, if you do a search for, as I did, Dr. Robert Epstein, you would see maybe a search result that was the one you wanted to click on, but you might not notice that there were things all over the page that were other advertisements and search results.
But those would be influencing you too, if only by volume, because the more you see something, the more you think it's true.
So if all around it, it said some version of the truth that they wanted you to believe, you wouldn't even spend too much time reading it, but you'd notice.
Oh, dogs can fly.
Everywhere on this page it says dogs can fly.
Well, I don't believe dogs can fly.
But if every time you did a Google search there was another article about flying dogs, eventually you would say to yourself, I don't know, maybe.
Maybe there's a flying dog.
So it actually is that powerful.
And Dr. Epstein has found some tools and technology, he claims.
Now, I would add some skepticism, because I haven't checked his work.
It's a pretty big claim he's making.
His claim is that he can capture the ephemeral ads, the things that don't get recorded, and he can tell you how they've affected you.
In his opinion, it moved the vote from 6 to 25 million votes.
Just Google, and just using this trick.
Just that trick.
6 to 25 million.
And to put that in context, I think Trump won 5 of 13 battleground states in this last election he lost.
But if Google had not been influencing people, according to Dr. Epstein, and intentionally, if they had not been intentionally brainwashing you with search results, Trump would have won 11 out of 13 of the battleground areas.
Is that true?
Well, it's a big claim.
So you should maintain a little skepticism about it.
But the context I'm giving you this is that you should, it's how you deprogram somebody.
You would say, are you aware of this?
Are you aware of that?
Are you aware of that?
If you can get them to be aware of the historical stuff, it's going to be way easier to convince them that it's never changed.
It's hard to say you're hypnotized.
It's much easier to say, here's history, and this is a history people are arguing about.
Left and right, Democrats and Republicans, this history they agree with.
Nobody's saying that Allen Dulles wasn't the head of the Warren Commission.
So the history we're pretty agreed on.
So the other thing Dr. Epstein said that was just shocking is they looked at Republicans and Democrats and their different...
They're different experience of using Google.
So apparently, I think this was the most recent presidential election.
If you were a Democrat, 100% of the time, because they can kind of tell who you are, you know, they know who you are, they can tell if you're a Democrat.
So if you're a Democrat, 100% of the time, if you use Google, right before the election, it would remind you to vote.
100% of the time.
A little extra.
Hey, remember to vote.
If you're a Republican, same time, 59% of them saw it.
59%.
Is that an accident?
Of course not.
Of course it's not an accident.
Oh, and do you think that that would influence turnout?
At a national level?
Of course.
Absolutely.
Don't know how much.
So these are the things that are happening right now.
And by the way, Dr. Epstein knows, because we've seen a, I guess he saw some message between Google and Wall Street Journal, in which they talked about using ephemeral ads to influence people in a way that they want to influence them.
So it's a known thing with a name that Google refers to.
When they're talking to the Wall Street Journal, they actually asked, you know, what kind of ephemeral ad should they use to influence this particular topic?
That's a real thing.
So I saw the ad, I saw Epstein's on Tim Poole's show.
I'm not sure of the date of it, but I went to look for it.
So I went to Google and I put in Tim Poole and Epstein and Google.
I should find it, right?
It's Tim Poole's show.
One of his major guests talking about Google.
Well, there were lots of stories about Epstein's Island.
I couldn't find it.
I couldn't Google it.
That's right.
The Tim Poole interview with the guy who says Google is brainwashing everybody and controlling the country.
I went to Google it.
Couldn't find it.
I only re-found it by looking at my own tweet, because I'd seen it in some natural way before that.
Just hold that in your head.
I couldn't Google it.
And it's also true that if you use Bing or other things, you'll get different results.
So it is definitely Google doing it.
It's definitely intentional.
And there's definitely an agenda.
No doubt about it.
All right, now that you've heard this about Google and that they could actually, guaranteed, change the control of the election.
Guaranteed, if Epstein's right.
What do you think about TikTok now?
Do you think TikTok is hypnotizing your children?
Yes.
Yes.
Really, really obviously so.
Do you remember when it looked like, you know, maybe we'd get on top of it, and people like me were saying, you know, cancel TikTok, and there were politicians were saying it too.
You know, Tom Cotton, other people were saying, yeah, ban TikTok.
And it looked like it might happen.
And then TikTok started running commercials on Fox News.
They won.
They won.
They hypnotized the world sufficiently, and probably there was money involved, etc.
But they actually hypnotized the world into thinking that they were acceptable, when they're one of the biggest risks to the country.
All it took was money and persuasion, and they had both.
Next, I would show somebody I was trying to convince that they'd been brainwashed.
I'd show them the hoax list.
They would, of course, as you know, they'd say, no, no, no, these are all real things.
And then I would refer them back to, let's say, Project Mockingbird.
You all know Project Mockingbird.
So that was when the CIA was using the media, quite intentionally, it's all public, it's a matter of history, to brainwash the citizens of the United States.
Then I would talk about Obama signing the amendment that would allow the CIA to brainwash people in the United States again, but only with this little technical thing they have to do first.
They have to create the materials to brainwash other countries.
It has to look like that's the purpose of it.
But then they could repurpose it in the United States.
That's a known thing.
That's all legal.
I would Oh, so I talked about the Ellen Dulles thing and how they put the most likely guilty person in charge of finding the real killer.
Sort of like having an OJ looking for the real killer.
Exactly like that.
And then I saw a tweet tweeted at me from Unhoodwinked.
Saying this, Alan Dulles, former head of CIA, was also the head of the Warren Commission.
The CIA put the wolf in charge of the head house.
The outcome could only go one way.
Now that's what I told you.
And then he points this out.
The bioweapon facilitating CIA used the same playbook with Fauci and the COVID origin.
They put Fauci in charge Of determining if the virus came from the lab that Fauci was accused of funding.
That does look a little familiar, doesn't it?
All right.
I don't know what's true there, but that's a pattern I wouldn't ignore.
How many of you know the Gulf of Tonkin event that triggered the Vietnam War?
And you know it was made up, right?
The United States acted like two of its ships had been fired, or no, one of its ships had been fired on twice.
Wasn't true.
It was a cause of war.
Now, if you were a citizen and you didn't know that had ever happened, wouldn't you be shocked?
Imagine not knowing that that was a real thing that happened.
And of course on the hoax list would be the 51 Intel people that signed that Hunter laptop letter saying that it was misinformation from, disinformation from Russia.
I would point that one out.
I would point out the Russia collusion hoax and I was also talking about NewsGuard.
Do you know NewsGuard?
It's an EU organization to make sure that online speech is policed.
But of course it's their version of what's okay.
So it's just a censorship vehicle.
So you would also have to teach people the Democrat censorship machine.
In which they use everything from NGOs and think tanks and fake fact-checkers and fake watchdogs like the ADL that are partially legitimate.
So the ADL does a bunch of good work, you know, making sure there's less discrimination against Jewish people and other people.
But, when needed, they're just political.
So they're just Democrat, hip, basically attack dogs.
So, all of these fact checkers, watchdogs, think tanks, these are all fake.
And they're designed so that the news people can refer to somebody else.
So it doesn't look like the news is lying directly.
Well, the fact checkers.
Well, the think tank says.
Well, you know.
So if you don't understand that there's a structure in which the Democrats have put people who have cycled through the government as Democrats, they make sure that they're really tight with the Democrat leadership, and then they're the perfect person to lead, let's say, the ADL.
Or to lead this fact-checking place, or to be on NewsGuard.
So if you don't understand that there's a structure and design to suppress free speech, especially from one side, then you don't know what's happening.
I mean, you'd be really confused if you didn't know that that was the design of our current system.
All right.
Now let's look at Mitch McConnell.
They trotted him out to talk about funding the war in Ukraine and he said, I'll paraphrase, he said that we're degrading the military of our biggest military opponent, Russia, and we're using a great deal of the money that we say is for Ukraine will actually be
We'll actually spend on states of the United States and that we're basically buying.
All right.
Is this this is just trolls over on the yelling that the sound is bad, right?
Will somebody confirm the sound works?
On YouTube?
Sound is great, right?
So those are just trolls because they know that that it bothers me when they do that, right?
So just ignore them.
Because now that we know that it's just trolls, the sound is fine.
Imagine being one of those trolls.
Imagine being that you woke up this morning and the most important thing in your life was to fuck up something that other people were enjoying.
And that was like a purpose.
And it's not just one person.
Apparently there's a whole bunch of people there who've decided to be really fun.
I think I'll make the world a worse place.
Thank you.
You don't have to talk about this anymore.
We're all clear on that.
All right, so McConnell says that it's good to fund Ukraine because not only is it degrading Russia's military capability, but a lot of that money is going to businesses that make military stuff in the United States.
So it's basically almost giving the money to ourselves in a way.
Does that sound like a solid plan or a bunch of brainwashing to stuff the pockets of the military-industrial complex?
Because, to me, he's saying directly that this is not legitimate.
Did any of you vote to start a war with Russia?
A war of, what would I call it, opportunity?
It's a war of opportunity.
So basically McConnell is saying, you know, these are my words, but it's as if he's saying, you know, we got lucky because when Russia started this war, we realized we could jump in and then we could really degrade them.
In other words, we declared fucking war on Russia, but we're doing it in a tricky way that also makes our friends rich who make weapons.
I think he's telling us that directly now.
And we're so hypnotized that we're like, well, all right.
I guess that was a good idea.
Pretty clever of you to degrade Russia and also, you know, beef up our internal economy.
Oh, my God.
Oh my God.
The fact that they say it directly now is the part that's blowing my mind.
There's nothing you can't tell the public at this point.
You could make the public, or at least half of it, believe anything.
Just anything.
That's where we're at.
All right, well, free speech supporters, here's some good news, bad news.
I think it's gonna end in more good news.
But there was a lower court that temporarily blocked the federal government from working with private companies like social media to censor speech.
Now you probably said to yourself, well that's a victory.
So a lower court just said your government cannot restrict your free speech by working with the platforms.
Yay!
Here's the bad news.
The Supreme Court just Wipe that away.
So it is now back to temporarily.
Supreme Court, temporarily.
They're going to take the case.
So the good news is, the Supreme Court is going to take the case.
But temporarily, they didn't think that the temporary restrictions were appropriate.
So I don't have a good reasoning for that.
I don't hate it, if it's temporary.
As long as they get serious about it.
So I'm generally okay with any part of the government saying we're not going to overreach.
So that's what it sounded like to me.
When the Supreme Court said we're going to wipe away this lower court ruling, that didn't feel like they'd made a decision.
That felt like, okay, you guys are Doing a little bit more with the government than the government needs to do.
You know, just cool it for a while.
We'll take a look at it.
If it needs to be reversed, we'll be the ones to reverse it.
Very adult.
Very adult.
I don't hate it, but I'm cautious.
You know, it could go the wrong way.
You never know.
Could be a signal it's going to go the wrong way.
Maybe.
But I think not.
I think they're adults.
I think we're going to get the right outcome.
Anthony Blinken says the U.S.
is, quote, ready to get involved in the Israel-Hamas war.
If the line is crossed, we won't hesitate.
The line.
Well, what's that line?
Does anybody know what the line is?
Because it seems to me that he just created a standard that allows him to engage the military of the United States on an opinion.
Well, I think that line's been crossed.
That's my opinion.
If you don't say what the line is, what are the odds it's going to be crossed?
100%?
Right?
Of course, they're certainly going to violate a line that doesn't exist.
Because somebody's going to say it was violated, no matter what happens.
So obviously, Hezbollah is going to be active, already are active.
So how much activity is too much?
Ground invasion?
I don't know.
Number of missiles?
What number of missiles would be over the line?
I don't know.
So that's a scary standard.
Well I'm seeing today a bunch of speculation that the Hamas attack in Israel and specifically the way some Democrats were not supporting Israel as much as Jewish Democrats would have hoped and many of us would have hoped as well.
So there's some speculation that there'll be a substantial move of Jewish American voters from Democrat to Republican.
I say probably not.
Probably not.
And the reason is that your choice of parties and even who you voted for has, well for a long time, I don't know what it was before, but it's really a lifestyle choice.
People are making lifestyle choices.
It's not even who's the best president or anything like that.
And I don't think that if you were a Jewish American and all your friends are Democrats and you hang around all the Democrats, that's a lot to ask of anybody to change under those conditions.
That's a lot.
And realistically, people don't.
They'll just keep doing what they're doing.
Now, that's also helped by the fact that Biden is being quite aggressive with our military.
So if Biden had not immediately put a strike force right off the coast, then I think you might have seen some Democrats who are Jewish say, you know what?
If you're not going to help us out, we're going to go to the party that will.
But he did.
So I'm not going to complain that he's Toothless.
We don't know how it'll play out.
But at the moment, he's showing some teeth.
And that's probably what Trump would have done.
Well, it probably wouldn't have gotten to this point, but that's another story.
So my prediction is opposite.
I don't think it's going to change as much as you think.
I do think that Trump will win more Jewish votes than his other times.
But I think it'll be a smallish change of a smallish group of Americans.
So I don't think it'll be... And also, the concentrations of Jewish Americans would be in such blue states that I doubt it would make any difference at all in an electoral Well, what's the difference if a few people in New York City vote for Trump?
Whoever he runs against is still going to win New York.
It wouldn't make any difference.
So, that's going on.
Here's a persuasion tip for you.
There's a persuasion word that I see used all the time that doesn't work at all.
It's Marxist and Marxism.
Here's the least persuasive thing you could say about somebody.
That person's a Marxist.
I don't even know what it means.
How many people even know what it means?
You think you do.
You've got a few words.
It's like, oh, it's like sort of like a communist or a socialist or something.
Something like that.
Right?
Marxist is the most empty, useless, powerless, non-persuasive word you could ever bring to the debate.
Now, I don't know what is a better word.
I just know that every time I hear that word, I just want to leave the room, because I'm not in a room where anything useful is happening.
As soon as I hear the word, I'm out.
Nope.
Whoever's talking, you have nothing to say.
Now, I'm not saying you're wrong, right?
I'm not saying that You know, Marxism is not really driving a lot of stuff like BLM.
Of course it seems to be.
They say it.
They say it directly, right?
But the public, the ones you want to persuade, they don't know what a Marxist is.
Like vaguely they think it's communist, and then vaguely they think, well, what you really mean is socialist, right?
And then they think, you mean like health care for everybody?
I kind of like that.
There's nothing about the word that's visual or scary unless you're a historian and you've studied it.
If you've studied it, it's scary as hell.
So the people who are using it are using their own knowledge of it and how scary it is to them as if other people have that same knowledge and fear.
They don't.
To them it's just a word that they don't know what it means.
So if you want to make that argument, And it's a strong direction to want to be arguing about.
It's important.
You're going to have to find better words.
So, maybe, maybe a word like redistribution of wealth?
Would that be part of it?
Would it be killing the people in power?
Is that what you're afraid of?
Are you afraid that Marxism leads to... No, here's what doesn't work.
If you say Marxism leads to a bad economy, people don't know how to connect those dots.
That's just noise going in your head and out.
You've got to make it visual or scary to somebody who actually understands what would be scary about it.
And that's it.
It should be visual and scary.
Everything else doesn't work.
You know, logic doesn't work, facts don't work, for persuasion.
You've just got to scare people or put a picture in their head because their visual sense is their dominant sense.
So, I hadn't thought about it too much, but you tell me, you tell me.
I know that many of you here are better informed than the average.
So you know what a Marxist is, a lot of you.
Give me the one sentence or even two words that tell me why a Marxist is bad.
Go!
Why a Marxist is bad, in the fewest words.
Liars, Killingfields, Bolshevik, none of this is working.
Communists?
Nothing.
Thieves?
Nothing.
Theft?
Tyranny?
Nothing.
Weapons?
Closed system?
Nothing.
Racism?
I don't think so.
Redistribution?
Meh.
Corrupt?
Poverty?
Scum?
Thugs?
Anti-individualists?
Dogmatic?
Totalitarian?
Homelessness?
Braindead?
Collapse?
Anti-capitalist?
All empty.
You're all shooting blanks.
That's just pure blanks.
There's nothing there.
It's no surprise that the people on that, with that... See, the thing, when you say starvation, I don't know how to connect the dots.
That sounds like a generic thing you say.
Oh, well if you elect a Republican, we're all going to starve.
I don't see starvation And also, in America, people are not too worried about starving.
Yeah, they're worried about poverty, but usually even poor people can get food.
So starvation is not an active word in the United States because we haven't experienced it.
It would be very active in China.
If you said to somebody in China, hey, watch out for your Marxism, you know, it leads to starvation, they would actually have a, let's say, A social memory of actual starvation.
So that would actually work in China.
It would be persuasive.
But here we don't have that that fear that's just like baked into our DNA like they do in China because they're so close to the starvation.
Same with Ukraine.
The Ukrainians have starvation in their DNA from the past.
So they might actually be really really incentivized by hearing we don't want to let the Marxists in.
So, all of your words I saw so far either don't connect to Marxist in a way that an uninformed person would understand.
Why does this lead to that?
Like, I don't really understand why this form of government leads to that.
Explain it to me.
So it's too conceptual, too many steps.
And the fear is like five steps away.
All right, well, if you start with your Marxism, that'll lead to this, and that'll lead to that, and that'll lead to that, and then you're hungry.
Doesn't work.
Too many steps.
You need something as simple as build the wall to keep the bad people from killing you.
That's persuasion.
All right?
So, I don't have a better idea.
But the one that comes closest is that you're incentivizing failure.
Now, that's not really a persuasive sentence, because there's nothing visual, but if you hear it, it would be hard to get it out of your head, that Marxism is incentivizing failure.
You're paying people to fail.
Because everybody understands that leads to a bad place.
You don't have to connect as many dots.
Yeah.
Marxism is where you pay people to fail.
Or something like that.
I mean I could do better.
I could do better.
But that's the direction you want to take it.
You want to do a two word replacement for Marxism that tells you exactly what the problem is.
And I don't know Even I don't know what that is.
I think it's something about incentives, right?
Well, let me ask this.
Would you agree that what's wrong with Marxism is it has the wrong set of incentives and therefore leads to certain doom?
All right.
So incentives is a boring nerd word.
Incentives doesn't make anybody get off the couch.
Hey, hey Bob, if you vote for this candidate, they'll have better incentives.
Nothing, right?
It's just empty.
But could you find something that does hit you emotionally that gets to those backward incentives?
Could you find an anecdote, a story, a comparison, a metaphor, something that makes that real and you feel it?
Snowball, slippery slope, no, too conceptual.
Well, a certain doom is still conceptual.
Good intentions with bad incentives leads to death.
Good intentions with bad incentives leads to death.
Now that has, death, I like death.
Because death is just an automatic.
It's like poison.
If you associate death and poison, actually poison might work.
Marxism is like poison.
Too simple.
Yeah.
Marxism is good intentions with bad incentives that lead to certain death.
It's still a little too abstract.
I don't have it yet.
I'm going to work on that.
You can work on that.
Part of the problem is that capitalism is a hot mess, too.
So if you say Marxism, an alternative to capitalism, it's got some problems, then anybody else would say, well, so does the other thing.
So that doesn't work.
All right.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, concludes the best show you've ever seen.
I'll try to figure out what's wrong with my streaming on the X platform.
See if I can fix that.
But today we've gone back to just the two iPad solution, one for YouTube and one for locals.
