Episode 2331 CWSA 12/23/23 A Shift In Consciousness, German Lessons On American Propaganda, More
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, Sumerian Tablets, Doppelgängers, Consciousness Shift, Simulation Theory, Old Souls, SCOTUS Rejects Jack Smith, President Trump, Dictator Accusations, Analogies Without Argument, Inflation, Governor Newsom, The Atlantic's Propaganda, Congressional Blackmail Process, Rep. Tim Burchett, Honeypot Blackmail, Nikki Haley Rumors, Louis Farrakhan, Julian Assange, 40 Murderers Pardoned, Governor Edwards, John Fetterman, Weed People Pardons, President Biden, 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.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and there's never been a better time in your entire life.
If you'd like this experience to go up to levels that you'll never forget and your small human brains can't even comprehend, well, all you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank of gel or styrofoam, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called, that's right, it's the simultaneous set that happens now.
Go!
Take a moment to savor.
If you're waking and baking, continue.
Well, I'm trying a new microphone setup for YouTube.
It appears that How is the audio on YouTube?
Should be a little worse than normal, but clear.
Okay, good.
Looks like we're good.
Here's something I learned just moments ago from a Instagram video.
Apparently, and I saw a screenshot, so I think this is real, the German high school students have lessons on how Americans are propagandized by their government.
Is that also the one?
Right.
German students learn how Americans are propagandized by their own government.
You know who doesn't learn that?
Americans.
So if you want to find out what's happening to Americans, you gotta ask a German.
Because they learn it in school.
That's a real thing.
I think.
I mean, I'll take a fact check on this, but there were screenshots.
And one of the German textbooks, according to the screenshot, says America has become no longer self-critical and we're lonely.
And my first reaction to that was, God damn you Germans!
Why are you calling us not self-critical and lonely?
Okay, you're right.
It's true.
You nailed it.
But why do you have to say that about us?
Damn it.
Stop being accurate.
Well, Tucker Carlson clarified his belief about what the unusual UAPs, some call them UFOs, are all about.
And he believes that these beings have always been here.
So Tucker believes there are real beings, some kind of other civilization, that have always been here and that they have a spiritual component.
Hmm, interesting.
So he's not buying into the aliens from another planet, but that there is something here.
How many of you believe that?
That there's something here that's spiritual in nature?
I'm gonna go with nope.
There's nothing here.
I'd love to believe there were.
You know, I like my conspiracy theories.
I like them a lot.
But, no.
Now, let me reiterate why I don't believe it.
I acknowledge there's a mountain of evidence.
You've got your whistleblowers, eyewitnesses, you've got people under oath, you've got video, you've got radar, you've got sonar, you've got, my God, so much, so much.
And none of it's good.
There are a million things that have that much direct evidence that are not true.
Want an example?
How about President Trump once called neo-Nazis fine people.
Well, that must be true.
There's tons of evidence.
You can look at the video.
All the news is reporting it.
And then if you want to say, well, but is it true?
Or is it like a one-off?
Well, then you would look at all the mountain of evidence that suggests that Trump is a racist dictator.
It's a mountain of evidence, so it must be true.
But it isn't true.
I mean, it seems to me it's not true.
So, the most ordinary thing in the world is to have a mountain of evidence for something that isn't true.
Because the evidence has a certain quality to it.
It's all kind of sketchy.
There's a lot of it, but it's all kind of sketchy.
Those are the ones you've got to watch out for.
All right.
Brian Romelli has a post on X telling us that there's a Sumerian tablet.
So Sumeria, you all know where the Sumerians were, right?
You know where the Sumerians were?
Let's check your general knowledge.
That's correct.
Yeah, the area which we now call Iraq, and the larger area there.
So the Sumerians were there thousands of years ago, and they found this Sumerian tablet from 2000 BCE, which apparently shows several math problems being solved, including drawings of trapezoids and triangles.
Uh-oh!
It suggests very strongly that the Sumerians understood Pythagorean theorem long before the Greek philosopher Pythagoras.
And Brian ends his post with the amnesia of who we really are.
Now, I told you I like conspiracy theories.
Here's the one I like the best.
If we know That there are all these buried civilizations we keep finding.
Like there's one whose name I can't call.
Gocleppy.
What's the one that's called?
Gopecky something.
Goplecky.
Goblecky.
Goblecky Teppy.
Yes, like I said.
How many times do I have to clearly say it?
Goblecky Teppy.
But it's the name of a Another one of these ancient, you know, incredible sites that got dug up, it was completely buried, and appears to have signs of civilization beyond what we believed existed at the time of these ruins.
So there are lots of hints that there might have been an earlier form of humans that were more advanced and something happened.
So that we lost, maybe we lost what they knew.
So I gotta believe that one.
Because, because if you look at our ability to reconstruct history, whether it's the, you know, the evolutionary tree, which are always changing and evolving, or the history of humankind, you know, did we all come out of Africa?
Is it more complicated than that?
There are big things.
About the history of the planet that we revise all the time.
I would not be surprised at all if we were once more more advanced and it wasn't a straight line from primitive to advanced.
I've got a feeling it was kind of a bumpy ride where we got more advanced and then we got wiped out by war and we got more advanced and then we got wiped out by a flood.
You know, probably something like that.
It's my guess.
But I've always been amazed that there are abandoned cities.
Why would you ever abandon a city?
There's something I fundamentally don't understand about history.
It's like a whole city.
You built the thing.
Now, I understand if somebody conquers a city.
But if you conquer a city, don't you stay there and, like, run the city?
Like, why would you get rid of all the people and then leave it empty so long?
That it gets covered with sand, like nobody's sweeping for a thousand years.
If you were a homeless primitive person and you knew there was a whole abandoned city somewhere, wouldn't you move in?
I don't know.
Maybe it's food.
It might be all about food and resources.
Yeah.
I can understand disease, but disease would kill everybody.
And then let's say it becomes empty.
But once it's empty, you tell me nobody wants to move back in?
There's no other civilization that says, hey, free city.
There's nobody in the city.
Let's just take it.
Maybe superstition.
Maybe they don't want to inhabit dead people's homes.
Maybe.
Mike Cernovich tweeted that he's been seeing more doppelgangers than usual.
Doppelganger meaning somebody who looks just like somebody else.
He said a friend even sent one of me, meaning Cernovich.
Could be code reuse, as Scott Adams says.
If so, why?
Now, of course, he's just being provocative and having fun with it.
Don't take it too seriously.
But how many of you are familiar with a book written decades ago called The Celestine Prophecies?
You ever heard of that?
It was a very influential book.
It's a fiction.
It's just a fictional story.
But a key concept in those books was that when people started noticing coincidences more often, the coincidences were a signal for a consciousness shift that human awareness was about to take a leap.
Now, I've always been fascinated by that, and there's no reason in the world to think that a consciousness shift would be preceded by some kind of bunch of coincidences.
Unless there's an obvious reason for it.
You want to hear an obvious reason why you might notice more coincidences right before a perceptual shift?
Like a really obvious reason.
The coincidences were always there, but your awareness improved.
And you're just noticing something that was right in front of you the whole time, but you just didn't see it.
So when somebody noticed a doppelganger of Mike Cernovich, Maybe a year ago they would have walked right past him.
Not even noticed.
So I'm not saying any of this is true.
I'm just having fun with it.
But you could imagine the situation in which the general awareness of the public is increasing, and they not only see the big stuff more clearly, such as the misinformation, you know, architecture of our existence, such as the full propagandized news, you know, that sort of thing.
If you're noticing the big stuff that you didn't really quite understand before, wouldn't it make sense that you're also maybe noticing other patterns just because your pattern recognizer has gone to another level?
And might we see other examples that would suggest that human awareness is reaching a new level?
Do you know anybody who predicted that human awareness was about to take a gigantic change?
Yes, that would be me.
In 2016 or 2015, I can't remember, I predicted a number of times in public and nobody even commented on it because it was such a strange prediction.
That Trump would change more than politics.
That he would rip a hole in the fabric of reality and change how we saw reality itself.
One of my better predictions.
All right.
But let's take this a little bit further.
Why are some other reasons that you might be able to see more coincidences?
It could be, like I said, there's a coincidence storm that you apparently notice because your ability to notice things is getting better in general.
Or there's another possibility.
Maybe it is code reuse and we're a simulation, that we're literally a program, and the program is reaching some limits, you know, physical limits, because we keep getting more complicated.
More people are born.
Every person has a complicated life that has to integrate with every other complicated life.
So you could quite easily imagine that even an amazingly powerful computer would reach some kind of limitation of its resources eventually.
It doesn't have to, but it could.
Now, if you were the programmer, and you were like really good, like you're not even an average programmer, like you're a programmer from the future, or even AI wrote it, maybe AI programmed it.
So it really knew how to take care of every possibility.
That's the best programmer, right?
Best programmer anticipates everything that could go wrong and then programs around it.
So one of the things that could go wrong is you run out of resources.
And what are you going to do?
Slow it down?
And then we all start moving in slow motion?
Would we notice it?
I think I'm moving in slow motion suddenly.
No, that's a bad solution.
How about the program starts to reuse code So it doesn't have to make up new code all the time.
That would save some resources.
So maybe you would say, oh, hell, I'm not going to design a new person.
I'll just copy some of the people I already have, and they're not going to notice.
Maybe.
Maybe you're just running out of resources in the simulation.
I don't think that's true, but I like to put out all the fun possibilities.
But here's the thing you have to understand about what you see around you.
If you could somehow know, in where you're sitting right now, as you're watching this, your exact environment where you are, if you had some way to know how much of your actual environment that you think you see clearly is actually a clear picture, if you could trace the light coming into your eyes, and how that's translated into a signal, and how that reaches your brain,
If you can see that somehow separate from how your brain is processing it, you would see it's just this big fuzzy approximate thing.
Yeah, and that would blow your mind.
It's a good thing you can't see that.
What's really happening is your brain is making you see clarity where none exists.
Let me tell you what's probably close to real.
All right, if I hold this object in my hand and I put all my focus on it, there's a reasonably good chance that I'm seeing this very simple, clean object in the middle of my field, somewhat close to how it actually exists.
But everything in my peripheral, I imagine is also clear, but I'm not looking at it at the moment.
But probably it's all just invented.
It's just sort of like this general canvas of invention that your brain is putting in there, because your brain can't see everything clearly.
Here's where I learned this first.
A tennis player who watches the ball hit near a line, and then, you know, there's an argument, hey, I saw it clearly hitting the line, and somebody else says, I clearly saw it outside.
Which one of them is right?
One saw it hit the line, and one saw it miss the line.
Which one was right?
And you say, well, how would I know?
I'm not there.
You're just making up this example.
No, there's an answer.
There's an actual answer to the question.
The answer is neither of them are right.
Both of them are seeing an invention of their mind.
Neither of them are seeing a ball hit a line.
They're not.
And the reason we know that is at a certain speed, your eyes can't really process it.
So the ball is coming in faster than your eyes can see it.
And the moment it hits is actually your hallucination.
You don't actually even see the ball hit.
Now I think sometimes you do by coincidence because you're kind of seeing the ball at stages and then your brain is filling in the in-between stuff.
But the part you're seeing is here, then here, then here.
So if you're lucky at the exact time the ball hit was also a time you were seeing it, well maybe you did see it.
But probably, your brain filled in a little movie of where it thinks it landed, and you think you saw it with your own eyes, but what you saw was your brain inventing a scene for you, because it couldn't see it at that speed.
Most of what you see is invented by your brain.
It's not actually what it looks like.
But your brain says, it's clear.
Now let me give you another example.
Let's say I'm a bad programmer, and I want to create a simulated world.
But I don't want to give it a lot of detail, because my computers are not strong enough to make everything precise and detailed.
But I don't want the characters who are in the simulation to know it's not detailed.
Because if they see it pixelated, then the game is over.
They're like, hey, I'm in a pixelated environment.
This is obviously a simulation.
So that's not going to work.
So instead, I program it like this.
Hey, little character in the program that I just wrote.
If you think you're looking at an object right in front of you, your brain will see this clearly.
That's it.
That's the whole program.
Your brain will see it clearly, even if your eyes don't really have the ability to do that.
So your environment will always be clear, But it's not actually what's there, or what your eye is picking up.
So yeah, reality is kind of weird.
The other possibility is that these coincidences are something called a coincidence, and they don't mean anything at all.
You're not in a simulation, and there are no doppelgangers, and none of it's real.
If you get a bet on it, if you get a bet on it just being a coincidence.
But it's fun.
Here's another possibility for doppelgangers.
This from a reply by Michael Grimarin.
And I think I'll just read it, because it's so well expressed.
I've never heard this before.
And Michael says, genes like energy are conserved as scale.
To which I say, I don't know what that means, but he goes on.
He says, they don't go away, but will resurface.
There's been some decent evidence that humans have suffered several Population bottlenecks, which is when the total number of people alive worldwide was quite small.
Which kind of makes sense with my earlier conversation of civilizations coming and going.
One such example comes from Rutgers, I think, in a 2005 or 2006, some kind of study, that all pre-1492 Native Americans descend from approximately 100 people that cross the land bridge.
Now that kind of makes sense, doesn't it?
Like if you assume that Native Americans got through over that little land bridge that was frozen for much of history, but at some point they could walk it.
You wouldn't really guess that a million people came over.
I would guess a small group, you know, made it.
So, and maybe a lot of people died on the way, etc.
But what if it's true that a hundred people came across?
Or that in history, there are a number of other times when the total number of people got really small and then that group had to regrow the population.
So, as Michael Guamarin goes on, he said, you would expect if the bottleneck was small enough and the total population today large enough, that there would be lots of doppelgangers.
Because the way genetics work is you don't always create something that's like a copy of yourself.
But you can create maybe a couple generations down, something that was pretty close to you, just by chance.
So doppelgangers would not be unusual if they all came from the first group of 100, but it would be very unusual if your starting group was a million.
Does that make sense?
So it could be one reason why you see more doppelgangers than you think ought to be normal.
And then I would add to that, I said this on my man cave last night.
I'm going to tie it all together now.
Do you know how some people seem like old souls?
And if you say to me, Scott, what does that mean?
What do you mean by an old soul?
My answer would be, I'm not really sure.
But I feel like I know it when I see it.
Right?
And I think most of you would say the same thing.
I'm not really sure how to define that.
I kind of know it when I see it, right?
There's some children who are just born adults.
I happen to be one of them.
I was basically born an adult.
And it feels like they have an old soul.
But what if they are very similar genetically to some relative from before?
Like in my case, a grandfather.
I'm told.
I never met him because he died when I was in the womb.
I'm told that I'm sort of the personality spitting image of my grandfather I never met, but not so much my father.
My father was different than both of us.
So it could be that the genes, you know, did their thing and I just became very much like my grandfather.
Now here's the interesting thing.
I don't know if epigenetics or Lamarckian stuff, I don't know if any of that's real.
Is it possible That a grandfather could have a life experience that modified his genes in a way that I would pick up two generations later.
Is that possible?
A lot of people say yes, but just for fun, let's say it is.
Just for fun.
What would happen if my grandfather had a life experience that modified his genes, and then I'm born later, Would I pick up some of the qualities that would be associated with, wait for it, lived experience?
In other words, could my genes have picked up experience in a way, in like an indirect way, that came from another human?
If so, it would be very much like I had inherited an older soul, but I'd done it the honest way through my genes.
Nothing magic, nothing outside of the physical realm, but it would feel exactly like a soul being passed down.
And I wonder if I would even have some awareness of it, because I feel as if I do.
I actually feel the length of that connection.
My grandfather I've never met, but it's probably mental because my mother used to mention it a lot.
But anyway, maybe there's something to genes and souls.
Well, let's go to politics.
The Supreme Court, as you know, rejected the request to expedite Jack Smith, the prosecutor's question about whether, I think the question was whether Trump would be immune because he was a president during some of the accusations.
Now, the Supreme Court rejected reviewing it, which means that now the lower court, Can do its thing because the request had been, hey, if we think this is going to get to the Supreme Court anyway, can we just skip this middle step?
Because it's a waste of time.
So the Supreme Court said, nope, you are not going to skip the middle step, which I kind of understand.
The middle step exists for a reason, and they did not have a compelling reason to skip the middle step.
So they didn't want to do it just because it's important.
I like that.
I like the fact that they weren't willing to do it just because it's important.
Because that wasn't the right reason.
That's not the reason.
The reason should be that the lower court, you know, didn't get it right or something, and there was a reason to appeal.
That's the reason they should handle it.
So they stuck to it.
I like it.
I'm happy with that.
But here's how people are interpreting it.
If you turn on any right-leaning news or watch anybody tweeting about it, they will say this.
That really the reason that Jack Smith wanted to expedite is so that he could put Trump in jail, potentially, before the election.
And therefore, Trump, you know, wouldn't have a chance of winning, or his chance would be much lower.
He could still win from jail, but his odds would be much lower that that all worked out.
So that's why you, how many of you have seen that reporting?
And therefore, say the experts on the right, This is pretty much proof that the prosecution is political because it was so important to get it done before the election.
And the only reason to do that is to stop him politically.
So how many of you are on that page?
That the Supreme Court and Jack Smith's action are really confirming that the legal part was bullshit.
And it was just political.
Everybody?
So basically 100% of you are on that page.
Has anybody checked out MSNBC?
Have you seen what the left says about this?
If you haven't seen what the left says about it, you're going to need to check it out.
You know what the left says about it?
It's not going to be delayed.
It might hold it up a little bit, but it'll still be done before the election.
I thought I was like hallucinating because I just happened to, I was just flipping through some news channels, and I caught a legal expert, and the legal expert was very experienced in this and the legal expert was very experienced in this field.
Like he was actually, you know, a federal Department of Justice lawyer who knew exactly what he was talking about.
And when people on the right are like, ah, ha ha, you know, Trump won.
Is this won't get done before the election?
A guy who knows exactly what he's talking about said, I won't make much difference, yeah.
Yeah, it may be delayed a little bit.
So now check your own propaganda situation.
Have you been propagandized by your own side?
Did they tell you some bullshit about this is going to make a difference?
Because I don't see it.
I don't see it at all.
I don't see anything that happened.
I'm going to go further to really make you mad.
I don't see anything that suggests it's political.
Why did you all see that?
What are you seeing that I don't see?
Now, let me be clear.
It could be, and it probably is, like my intuition My gut, my experience, and everything I've ever experienced in my whole life all point in the same direction, which is everything's political.
All 91 indictments, all four cases, all political.
So you and I are 100% on the same page that everything's political.
However, trying to expedite a case If I were the prosecutor, I would try to expedite the case.
For what reason?
Well, one would be purely political.
But what would be the other reason to try to expedite a case?
How about every fucking reason in the world?
How about the best reason to expedite a case is that that's exactly what our political, our justice system requires.
The justice system requires him to try to do the job fast.
If he knows it's going to end up in the Supreme Court, he'd be a fucking asshole not to go there first.
Am I wrong?
Tell me I'm wrong.
If you know it's going to go to the Supreme Court, he would be a fucking incompetent asshole if he didn't at least see, well, why don't you see if he can just handle this right away?
Why would he do all this court preparation for a lower court if it's a complete waste of time?
Don't you think he wants to go home for Christmas too?
I mean, next Christmas.
So here's the thing.
You're making some assumptions.
Here's the assumption you're making.
That there's one and only one valid reason for asking the Supreme Court to go fast.
There's every reason to ask them to do that.
Reason number one, it's the right thing to do.
Speedy trial.
Speedy trial is the most basic, well, it's one of the most basic things in our system.
So you're telling me that you're mad that the prosecutor tried to get a speedy trial and skip a step that's completely a waste of time.
That's why we pay him.
We pay him to make a speedy trial That doesn't waste anybody's time.
And we're acting like the only way to interpret that is politically.
Now, keep in mind, I do think everything that they're doing is political.
But you don't see it in that.
It's not in that example.
Well, let me be more clear.
It could be entirely in that example.
But the alternative, that he's just doing his job exactly the way you'd want him to do his job, this is exactly how I want him to do his job.
Don't you?
How many of you would want him not to have tried to skip the unnecessary step?
Would you be happier if he skipped the unnecessary step?
Why?
What's the argument for that?
Wrong!
The speed to hurt defense.
So some are saying that the reason for the speed would be to cripple the defense.
But correct me if I'm wrong.
Does not the defense Get to argue how much time they need to the court.
And can that not be modified based on real reasons?
Isn't that normal routine?
That you, you say how much time you need and reasonable people look at it and say, yeah.
And if something comes up, that's like a real, real, real good reason that, you know, there's some important evidence that just will take another month, no matter what.
Wouldn't the judge say, all right, that's so important.
We'll change the trial date to make sure we have that.
So to me, it seems like the defense always has the right to at least request under reasonable standards a change in the trial.
Likewise, the prosecution does for any variety of reasons.
So you're wrong.
Let me just say this.
If you haven't seen how the left is treating this issue, I feel like you're flying blind.
So, you don't need to change your opinion that it's completely political, because I think there's enough obvious evidence for that.
But if you think you proved it because of this, I don't see it.
You're gonna have to do better than that.
If you asked, if you asked Jack Smith, why do you want to do that?
What do you think he'd say?
I'm just going to guess what he would say.
Here's what I guess.
We try to do speedy trials and not waste money.
And I tried to skip an unnecessary step that both sides, prosecution, et cetera, probably thought were unnecessary.
Did we hit the 34 minute glitch again?
I've seen both platforms.
There it is.
34 minutes.
What the hell is that?
It's a 34 minute glitch.
But it's on both platforms.
And the only thing they have in common is my Wi-Fi.
Why would my Wi-Fi glitch every day?
I feel like there's maybe something comes online that uses the same I don't think he's throttling.
I don't know.
Buffer overrun?
I don't know.
It's a mystery.
All right.
Let's talk about the Rolling Stones has an article about Trump who apparently is telling his close advisor types that he plans to keep saying that the illegal immigrants are poisoning the blood of America.
Now, of course, his opponents are saying That came out of Mein Kampf.
You're talking like Hitler.
Stop talking like Hitler.
To which Trump says, I think I'm going to double down on talking like Hitler.
No, don't do it.
You sound like Hitler.
Now I'm going to triple my talk like Hitler.
No, no, you're so Hitler.
Stop it.
OK, now I'm going to do nothing but Hitler.
Oh, no.
I feel like he's just making them crazy because he's literally doubling down on the thing that They think is his biggest vulnerability.
Let's think about it.
He's doubling down on giving them fodder for what they consider his biggest vulnerability.
What's up with that?
Is he suddenly stupid, Trump?
Is it like just doesn't make any sense?
My first reaction was, why would you do this?
This is just making your job harder.
All you have to do is just keep your mouth shut.
Just, you know, coast into the job.
Yeah.
Well, let me suggest a possibility.
Because I know, I know I'm getting it mocked for, oh, you're doing 44 DHS.
No, he's just being stupid.
Maybe.
Maybe.
It's not how I would have played it.
So, but let's just explore the possibility.
There's something here.
That's more strategic than obvious.
And this comes from Andre, what was his name?
Famous tennis, Andre Agassi.
So Andre Agassi, when he would play against top players, he only needed to do this against the top players.
Let's say he's playing somebody who has the best backhand in the world.
He's like, oh my God, you don't want to hit to their backhand.
You know what he would do?
Hit to their backhand.
Because it was their best shot.
Because if he could break it down, there was nothing left.
Because if he takes out their best shot, by winning more points on their best shot than they win on their best shot, their entire architecture of confidence crumbles.
So he can beat people in the first few games.
It's like, maybe you have to win three out of five sets, but he can win in the first three games.
All he has to do is go right at their strongest shot until he wins more points than they won on their strongest shot.
And then they're dead.
They're absolutely dead.
And then the rest of it is just, you know, bayonetting the wounded, basically.
Now, you have to be so good that you can beat their best shot.
So, I mean, it's not like so much a strategy as, you know, he's so good.
But he could have very easily, you know, Tried to go to their weak shot, which would tell the other person that they have a really good shot, because he's really staying away from my forehand.
So you don't give them any confidence.
You just go right at their best shot.
You break it down, and then they got nothing.
They have nothing left after that.
Now, what is the Democrats' best shot on Trump?
Well, clearly, they've completely abandoned anything like policy.
He's a dictator and you fill in the blanks.
We have some new Democrats who have added some new dictators.
So an anti-Trump group is now comparing him in some kind of ad to Mussolini or Orban.
Orban is the leader of Hungary?
Who is Orban?
Hungary, right?
So they're comparing him to other leaders that they think are totalitarian.
Now, let me mock this.
They actually had to add more dictators.
So saying that Trump was like Hitler wasn't giving him any traction.
So here was their strategy.
I think we don't have enough dictators.
Okay, they're not buying the Hitler.
What if we add Mussolini?
Well, now you're talking.
Now you're talking.
That's two dictators.
Wow!
I wasn't too concerned when you compared Trump to one dictator, but oh my god!
Now two!
Orban!
Orban!
Three!
Three!
Oh no!
Oh no, three dictators.
How about Putin?
Oh no!
It's Putin!
Oh!
Four dictators!
Oh!
Oh!
You know what this makes me think of when they keep adding dictators?
See if this doesn't make you laugh.
I'm waiting to see if anybody said it yet in the comments.
You're not there yet?
Two words.
You ready for it?
More cowbell.
Yeah?
What do you think?
More cowbell.
Do you know why that's funny?
Now, first of all, it comes from Saturday Night Live.
What was the name of the actor?
Yeah, Christopher Walken.
In some skit, he's doing some musical skit, and he's insisting that there be more cowbell.
Now, cowbell Is usually the, you know, sort of the least respected instrument.
Except maybe the tambourine.
You know, when the lead singer, like, does the tambourine because the lead singer can't play an instrument.
But beyond the tambourine, probably the cowbell is the least respected of the instrument parts.
But I just think of more cowbell every time they add a new dictator.
And I feel like just saying that, it's like, Well, he's like Hitler.
Go on.
Well, he's also like Mussolini.
More cowbell!
Well, he's also like Orban.
More cowbell!
Well, he's also like Putin.
More cowbell!
Well, he's also kind of like Pol Pot.
More cowbell!
Well, he's also like Thanos.
More cowbell!
So just yell more cowbell every time they add a dictator.
It'll be fun.
So here's why Trump might be smarter than you think.
He goes for energy, and he goes for... He's breaking down their strongest stroke.
This is their back end.
Well, I'll call it their forehand, because forehand is usually stronger.
This is the Democrats' forehand.
He's going at their forehand.
He's so fucking aggressive, which is why people like him.
It would be easy for him to back down from this and say, you know, we love the immigrants.
We love them.
Love the immigrants.
But you know, we need to do a little more on the border.
That's not really going to make you excited or even believe he's going to do much.
But if he goes further than he's supposed to go, To the point where his opponents are calling him killer.
More cowbell, Mussolini.
More cowbell, Orban.
Then he's got him right where he wants him.
What are you thinking about when Trump is going too far on the border?
What are you thinking about?
Where's your brain go?
That he'll get the job done?
By making you think that he'll go too far, It makes you think, well, at least he'll get the job done.
His persuasion is not exactly how I would do it.
But like I always say, you can't compare him to any other human or animal.
Like Trump is just his own entity.
Comparing him to anything is just a waste of time.
He's just his own.
And I think he's going right at their forehand.
Because he wants to break it down.
And let me ask you, if they compare him to every dictator in the world, and it's all they have, between now and election day, who wins?
If it's all they have, it's just more cowbell.
It's gonna sound like people will just be used to it, and it'll just look stupid.
Yeah.
So, let me give you a good general rule for persuasion.
Or for spotting a dishonest argument.
Here's a good rule.
Somebody who has an honest argument, in politics or anything else, is going to say, here are the pros, and here are the cons.
But when you consider all the pros, and you consider all the cons, on net, I'm in favor of this, or I'm against it.
Now, then you've got something to work with.
Maybe you debate the facts, Maybe you debate the priorities, but that's an honest argument.
Here's all the pros, here's all the cons, here's what I think about it on that.
So if you see that, you should engage as an honest debater yourself, you know, if you want to be a good person, because that's an honest person.
They're trying, even if they disagree with you, it looks like they're trying.
Now here's what not an honest debate looks like.
Analogies.
If all you're getting is scary analogies, you know, this is like the Great Depression, you know, this is like Hitler, you know, this reminds me of, you know, the destruction of the Roman Empire, you know, right?
If you have analogies without an argument, that is a dishonest debate.
It's dishonest.
Because they're not trying to win on any kind of logic or priorities or anything.
They're just trying to scare the shit out of you.
So, I don't know why nobody else is mentioning this.
Why am I the only one to mention that the attacks against Trump have nothing to do with his policies?
It's entirely analogies.
They're simply taking other people in other situations.
Well, you know Hitler in 1939.
Well, you know what?
It's not Germany.
It's not 1939.
It's not Germany, it's not 1939, he's not a Hiller, and almost nothing about that applies.
But if your brain thinks it does, then it can be persuasive.
Now, I'm not saying the Democrats are not being persuasive.
They are.
It's just all they have.
They really have to run as far and hard as they can from policy, because Biden didn't deliver.
And everybody can see, for example, that the borders amassed, crime in the cities and all that.
I'm going to agree with Biden's people on one thing.
I do think the economy is better than the press or the public maybe is quite realized.
Now you say to yourself, but, but, you know, prices are too high.
Yes.
And the debt is out of control.
Yes.
So if you looked at those two things, they actually are a mess, but it is weird.
We have a strange economy where employment's not so bad.
And if anything, employers are going to be begging for workers.
I do think workers' pay has gone up, maybe not as much as inflation.
It does look like we're getting our supply chains slowly, but consistently we're getting our supply chains under control.
That's good, especially the critical stuff.
You know, not fast enough, not nearly fast enough, but moving in the right direction.
So I'm going to give Biden a B-minus on the economy.
B-minus.
Which is probably better than the public thinks it is, because when you buy the gas and you buy the groceries, you just vomit in your own mouth.
I mean, even I do, and I'm doing okay.
When I buy groceries, I'm actually shocked.
I'm fucking shocked.
And I can afford it, so it's not affecting my life too much.
But I was fucking shocked when I had this little pile of groceries and they're like, that'll be $200.
I'm like, what?
That little pile?
That's $200?
I mean, it's just my mind exploded.
Normally, I don't even pay attention to it, honestly.
I hate to say it because it's such a douchebag thing.
I don't really pay attention to small consumer item prices because, you know, it doesn't affect my life, but it's so high that I'm actually paying attention and I'm actually making decisions that I wouldn't have made before about, well, maybe I don't need that.
So yeah, I can see why people think the economy is garbage, but it's probably a little bit better than they think.
It's just not affecting them personally yet.
I am worried about the crushing debt.
I don't know how we get around that.
All right.
Here's Governor Newsom talking about Trump.
Let's see if you can find his policy criticisms.
Policy criticisms.
Here's Governor Newsom.
He warned that efforts to prevent former President Trump from getting on the ballot in his state would be political distraction, so he doesn't want to do it.
Oh, that's very big of him, isn't it?
Like it matters in California.
California doesn't matter.
Trump's not going to win California.
So it doesn't matter what they do.
So got Newsom.
Instead of Newsom saying it doesn't matter what we do, because he's not going to win California.
He just says it's a political distraction, which is actually pretty smart.
Because it sounds more like a high ground.
You know, I'm the adult in the room.
Don't bother with this trivial stuff.
He's right about it.
But then he says this, quote, there is no doubt.
I like that.
There's no doubt.
Oh, no, there's no doubt.
See if you have any doubt about what follows the rest of the sentence.
Because he told you there's no doubt.
So what follows must be true to every human in the world.
No doubt.
So there's no doubt that Donald Trump is a threat to our liberties and even to our democracy.
Now, what was the part about his policies?
That's it.
That's it.
Where's the part about when he was president last time, which wasn't too long ago, he did all of these terrible things and took away your liberties?
I don't remember that happening.
I feel like that was kind of weird that Trump waited until the second term to take away our liberties.
Why doesn't he take away our liberties in the first four years?
It's going to take away our liberties.
So you can see now that even Newsom, who is sort of the standard of quality for the Democrats, he's basically the best they have.
I hate to say it.
He's the best they have.
And he's not even touching policy.
The only way he'll touch policy is to tell you it's like Hitler.
So he's, you know, roughly touching on immigration policy, but he doesn't even mention it.
Like, well, Hitler.
What do you think about Trump's policy about energy and drill, baby, drill?
Well, Hitler.
What do you think about Trump's saying he could, you know, stop the war in Ukraine?
Well, Hitler.
That's all I have.
More cowbell.
I tell you consistently that you can't understand politics until you understand the players.
So, wherever I can, I'm going to tell you about a player that you'll remember, that the next time you see that player, you'll know you're not dealing with an honest broker of information.
Have you heard of a publication called The Atlantic?
Well, The Atlantic is perhaps the very worst of the absurdly political-biased, anti-Trump, deranged bullshit.
Because the Atlantic is an old institution as a publication, there are many people, as in Democrats, who don't know it's not a legitimate publication.
I mean, it's not even close to legitimate.
It's just a purely political instrument.
So what did they say?
Today, they had an article that says, in the debate over freedom versus control of the global network, meaning the Internet, freedom versus control, China was largely correct and the U.S.
was wrong?
Yes.
The Atlantic would like you to believe that China is more correct in censoring their Internet because the only way the Democrats can win is to prevent Republicans from having free speech.
They're kind of saying it directly now.
Now here's the important part.
The fact that it's in the Atlantic Tells you that it's basically a Democrat op.
It's not just a bunch of people who agree with Democrats.
It's more likely very connected to the Democrat strategy than just, you know, randomly agrees with them.
If the Democrat strategy is to get you feeling a little bit better about Chinese level censorship, or The Iranian model where the Ayatollah decides who's on the ballot.
Oh, yeah, we have democracy here.
You can vote for anybody you want as long as I've approved them being on the ballot.
So that's what they're trying to do with Trump.
You can vote for anybody you want, but we're going to tell you who can be on the ballot.
So the Atlantic is part of this mass misinformation Democrat machine.
That's trying to propagandize you or prime you for greater internet control.
Do you know why?
Because that misinformation that you're getting, in other words, everything Republicans say according to them, that misinformation would lead to what?
What would it lead to?
Could it lead to losing your liberty and your democracy?
Yeah.
So the Atlantic is one of the ones to keep in your mind that whatever they're saying is an op.
It's not news, and it's not exactly even an opinion.
It's not even the real opinion of the people saying it.
It's an op.
You should see it that way.
It's just pure propaganda.
Well, this is disturbing.
Congressman Tim Burchett described on a podcast how the blackmail operations work in Congress.
Now, What is scarier than thinking the worst about something and then finding out it's exactly correct?
Now, I don't know if Tim Burchett has seen this, or he's just like us, where he just assumes it's true, but he's there.
I feel like he saw it.
Here's how he describes the system.
Now remember, he's in the system.
He's not like us.
He's not looking from the outside.
He's in the system that he's describing this way.
Quote, this is how it works.
You're visiting, you're out of the country, you're out of town, or you're in a motel or bar in DC, and some whatever, you're into women or men or whatever, comes up, and they're very attractive, and they're laughing at your jokes, and you're buying them a drink, and next thing you know, you're in the motel room with them, naked, and the next thing you know, you're about to make a key vote, and what happens?
Some well-dressed person comes up and whispers in your ear, Hey man, there's tape sound on you.
Were you in a hotel room on whatever with whoever?
And then you're like, oh, and said, you really, you really ought to be not be voting for this thing.
Do you think that's accurate?
I mean, he's, he could not be a better source.
He's right in the middle of this world.
Is it actually, is it literally that obvious?
It's like right on the nose.
They literally have the, what do you call it?
The sugar trap or something.
There's some name for it.
What's the name for that?
When the honeypot, yeah.
So it's a sugar trap.
It's a honeypot.
That literally there's a honeypot and that literally somebody comes up and says we have tapes.
Now, I'm sure that has happened in American history.
And, you know, numerous times, I'm sure.
But I wonder how universal it is.
Does it describe literally everything?
Because I think this has been happening since, what, J. Edgar Hoover?
That there's been, you know, like an ongoing blackmail operation.
Well, you know what makes this worse?
Why are politicians easy to blackmail?
There's an obvious reason.
You know why?
Other than the fact they do bad things.
But other people do bad things too.
I have a feeling that one of the reasons people go into politics is that they're too ugly to get laid otherwise.
Am I wrong?
Look at your politicians.
And then you subtract down some outliers.
It's like, okay, JFK, he was good looking, right?
And apparently he had a pretty active sex life.
But you know, he's an outlier.
If Mitch Mitchell is getting a little on the side, do you think it's because he's quite a lover?
He really knows how to get it done, if you know what I mean.
He's a finisher.
Probably not.
No, I'm not suggesting he's having any kind of situation like that.
I'm just saying that if you were to take a picture of the, certainly the men in Congress, it's mostly the men I think, if you took a picture of the men, they're not exactly killing it on Tinder.
So, I think they're unusually easy to blackmail, because you've just got to pay somebody to close their eyes and do whatever drugs they need to to get the job done.
Yeah, I think Congress is especially, they're especially susceptible to this.
So my suggestion is this.
You should either only vote for people who can get laid without your help.
In other words, they don't need the job.
Well, I can still get laid.
And then maybe, maybe less blackmail.
Or people who have been so thoroughly vetted That you wouldn't be surprised a bit and the blackmail wouldn't even work if you caught them with their pants down in the middle of the public square.
Can you think of anybody like that?
Who would be a politician who has been caught so many times that it wouldn't even mean anything if you caught him again?
Yeah.
Trump is perfect.
I think he's as close to unblackmailable as we've ever had for a leader.
He might be the pinnacle of an unblackmailable person.
And I remind you of this all the time, but when he was running for office the first time, he said publicly, I'm no angel.
When he did that, I said to myself, okay, you just told us what the game is.
I'm no angel.
But I'm on your side.
That was a pretty good package.
I wanted somebody to say, I'm no angel.
So if something comes out later that shows them they're no angel, go, oh, well, you didn't lie to me.
I guess I should have seen it coming.
But at the same time, he says, I'm not going to be an angel, but I'm going to be the fucker on your side.
And then he acts exactly like he's on your side, closing the border, et cetera.
So I can live with that.
I can totally live with, I'm no angel, but I'm going to be the demon on your team.
Sounds good to me?
All right.
There are all these Trump, Nikki Haley rumors, CBS is reporting that Trump was asking his allies about the possibility of Nikki Haley for vice president.
And then Trump supporters got all excited and upset and yada, yada, yada.
Here's my take on that.
If there's one thing we've learned about Trump, he will ask all the questions that are the right questions to ask, and then when he's done asking all the right questions to ask, he'll go a little further.
Which I actually love about him.
Remember the story about how he asked if he could use a nuclear weapon to stop a hurricane?
You remember that?
Now, I don't know if he ever asked that question.
I think he denied it.
But I love the fact, if he did, I love it.
Now, the answer was, no, that's crazy.
And then it didn't come up again.
But don't you like that he asked the question?
Just brainstorm, right?
I absolutely like that he asked the question.
I had no problem with that at all.
So when he asked the question, what about Nikki Haley as vice president?
That is not an indication that he likes her on the ticket.
To me, that's The normal Trump way of doing business, that he doesn't see it.
Because if he saw it, he wouldn't be asking.
Am I right?
If he felt she was the right choice, he wouldn't be asking the question.
So he's not feeling it.
And when he asks the question, it suggests that he's looking for somebody to make the best argument to see if it changes his mind.
That's good form.
You should always check to see if somebody can change your mind.
Because it's one of the biggest questions, right?
His VP is one of the biggest questions.
So he wants to get it right.
And just like, I was going to use that example, when he got in trouble for asking about the injecting of the disinfectant, the context was light as a disinfectant.
So he went beyond what you'd expect and asked the extra question.
Well, could he use light?
If you could inject the light inside the body, would it work?
And then it got misinterpreted as drinking bleach, of course.
But I wanted him to ask the question.
I was happy he asked the question.
It just got turned out wrong.
So yeah, ask the question.
I don't think there's any chance.
And as I posted, I don't think I could support him if she were vice president.
Let me do a quick poll.
Many of you are probably Trump supporters should he get the nomination.
Maybe you're supporting somebody else, but if he got the nomination, how many of you would withdraw your support if Nikki Haley were the vice president?
All right, yeah, it looks like people would withdraw support.
Now let me ask you this question.
Can you even think of another choice for vice president that would make you change your vote?
People don't change their vote for the Vice President, but they would for her.
I would.
I literally, not hyperbole, that would be a hard no.
Because I would lose confidence in Trump.
I would lose confidence in his judgment if he took such an obvious wrong choice.
So Pence was a good choice because we didn't know much about him.
So you just say, well, all right, whatever, if you like him, it's okay with me.
But Haley, we know too much about.
Especially in the military industrial complex way.
Now, I don't know if the accusations against Nikki Haley are, you know, as solid as they appear to be, which is she's a little too close to the military spenders.
But it could be.
I mean, it's a huge red flag.
So it doesn't seem like the right fit for Trump.
I'm glad he's asking the question.
My personal assumption is zero chance it will happen.
Zero chance.
But I think he and Haley have had a good history, right?
Am I right?
I thought they got along when she was in the administration.
So I don't mind at all that he asks the question.
Because asking the question is how he finds out how other people feel about it, and that's exactly what he should be doing.
He's probably thinking that his own judgment... Let me put it another way.
Because he worked with her and had a reasonably good association, I think he's not trusting his own judgment, and he wants to get some more objective opinions on it.
But he'll be fine.
There's no way he's going to pick her.
But Nikki Haley does seem to be surging in the New Hampshire polling, all the way up to just barely behind Trump, who is polling at 33% with 2 or 29%.
The rest of the field is way behind.
Now, that's probably what triggered Trump to start asking the question, but does New Hampshire mean anything to anybody?
I feel like New Hampshire is the least indicative Primary.
It goes first.
So it can definitely change how we think about it, but it shouldn't.
So, I don't know.
I'm not worried about New Hampshire.
Trump was asked if he would debate a Republican, and I guess he was asked that, and he gave exactly the right answer.
Exactly the right answer.
The right answer is, yes, if it gets close, but it's not there yet.
Because he wants to act strong, like of course I would talk to him.
But he also doesn't want to look like he's wasting his time with the undercard.
So he gives exactly the right answer.
If somebody comes close, yeah, that would make sense.
Have a debate.
Just what you want to hear.
He might not mean it, but it's exactly the right answer.
Here's something you didn't see coming.
Ron DeSantis has been backed by, I guess, one of the biggest backers.
It's the main outside group.
It was a PAC, Political Action Committee, called Never Back Down.
Never Back Down.
Let's get an update on Never Back Down.
Oh, they're backing down.
They're backing down.
So they're not going to run ads in Iowa or New Hampshire.
They're not going to run ads in Iowa or New Hampshire, the first two primaries.
I feel like they backed down.
Let me give you some hypnotist and humorist advice.
When you're picking the name of your group, you should say to yourself, how can this be mocked?
It's exactly the same if you're picking a name for your child.
If your last name is Cass, Don't name your child Jack.
Am I right?
Because you should ask yourself, how will the school kids respond to naming my child Jack Cass?
Do you think that will cause any problems?
Now, I only mention that because I grew up with somebody named Jack Cass.
Yeah.
His born name was Jonathan, but everybody called him Jack.
So...
Don't do that.
Never call your pack, never back down if you think you might back down.
All right, surprise of the day.
Wall Street apes have this post.
So you've probably heard of the Honorable Mr. Minister Louis Farrakhan.
You all know who he is, right?
So I think he's accused me of being anti-Semitic.
But he is a well-known, powerful, longtime leader in the black community for a subset of the black community who likes his messages.
So he's very controversial, specifically anti-semitic is the charge on him.
But here's what he said that's just mind-blowing.
Now remember I said that those doppelgangers and those coincidences, they might associate a larger shift in consciousness?
A larger shift in consciousness.
Let me read to you what the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan says about Donald Trump.
This is recent.
I'll read the whole thing.
Quote, the nature of this administration is good for us.
He was talking about Trump.
Maybe this was when Trump was... I'm not sure of the date on this.
He says, because of Trump's way, he is an anomaly.
There's never been no president quite like Mr. Trump.
There's something that he's doing.
Trump is destroying every enemy that was an enemy of our rise.
In this case, he's talking about black Americans.
So he's saying that Trump and black Americans have the same enemies.
That sound familiar?
Something I've told you?
He said, who's the enemy of our rise?
Is it the Department of Justice, where we get none?
Hmm.
Is it Congress, where you make a law that favors us and then you turn around and destroy it?
Hmm.
Is it the media that has destroyed every black leader that has stood up for us?
Hmm.
Martin Luther King suffered it.
And then he says Malcolm suffered it.
Then he talks about Trump some more.
He says he's attacking the media.
Calls it fake news.
We have been the victims of some fake news.
Yes, he's beating up the FBI.
And then he says, go at it, baby.
Yeah, they've been beating the hell out of us ever since J. Edgar Hoover and the counter.
I don't know what the counter is.
So does that feel like a shift in consciousness?
It does, doesn't it?
So the shift in consciousness is That the Democrats have been gaslighting them, them being black Americans, the whole time.
And that they couldn't tell who their friends were and who their enemies were.
But when Trump very clearly targeted all the same people that Farrakhan would call his enemies, he couldn't miss it anymore.
What would you call noticing that Trump had targeted The media, the FBI, the Department of Justice.
Another word for that would be... What would be another word for that?
It's the same things that Black America wanted targeted, and then Trunka actually did it.
What's another word for that?
That's a coincidence, isn't it?
Kind of a coincidence.
So Louis Farrakhan noticed a pattern that maybe he hadn't noticed until recently.
That, wait a minute, that's kind of a coincidence.
I don't, I think the Department of Justice is corrupt, and now this Republican guy does too.
That's a weird coincidence.
Wait, we think the FBI is corrupt, but you're saying Trump says that too?
Sorry, that's two coincidences.
Wait, you're saying, you're saying that the news, the DOG, the FBI, all of them, he's going after all of them?
Do you see the pattern?
Those doppelgangers are people who are noticing patterns.
It just happens to be a trivial pattern.
It's not important.
You know, somebody looks like somebody else.
But that raising consciousness that allows you to see patterns allows you to break out of the brainwashing.
Because it's those patterns that are the key to the door if you're in your little brainwashed bubble.
There's actually a door.
And it's got a keyhole.
And the keyhole are the coincidences.
Wait a minute.
If this is true, then how could this other thing be true?
Well, if it were just one thing, maybe you'd ignore it.
But wait a minute.
But this other thing is true also.
How does that make sense with this other thing?
And then the coincidences start to form a pattern.
And then the pattern becomes a key.
And then the key goes in the lock.
And you escape your bubble.
Farrakhan just found the keyhole.
Now, I'm not a Farrakhan fan, so I'm not fanboying Farrakhan.
That's not happening.
I'm just saying you're seeing an example of somebody used pattern recognition as an escape.
And it worked.
Here's another pattern.
Thank you.
Tucker Carlson talking about Assange, Julian Assange.
And Julian Assange did a number of journalistic things that other people call him a spy, I guess.
And the journalistic things were very embarrassing for our intel organizations and the deep state, basically, and Hillary Clinton.
And apparently we have reporting that Mike Pompeo was talking about plans to murder Assange.
Murderer.
So now you've got Democrats who want him dead, Assange.
You've got a prominent Republican who was even running for president at one point, who wanted him dead, reportedly.
And it seems to me that Assange has embarrassed the deep state, which might be a little bit both Republican and Democrat at its base.
So, the question is, why are so many people wanting to kill him or put him in jail forever when you and I aren't quite sure why?
It's been a long time.
Shouldn't I be able to express the other argument as easily as I can express the, you know, the free him?
Why do I only know the argument of why he's a journalist and should be free?
Why am I not aware of the counterargument?
Is that a coincidence?
I don't see it anywhere.
Now, I know the general argument that he revealed some stuff that would cause some people to get killed or something.
And I'd like to see that argument.
And if that's the case, that's important.
But there's something about the lack of transparency and the fact that he's being treated the way he's treated That tells you that everything about this is corrupt and wrong and should be stopped.
I don't know what's wrong with it.
And I don't know what's corrupt.
But this isn't adding up.
Sorry.
The pattern recognition is too clear.
The pattern is, if they had the real goods, the stuff they could argue with the public was important and you would agree with it, they would tell you.
Yeah, they would tell you.
When somebody doesn't have an argument that they're willing to share with you, it's because they don't have one.
I mean, I have trouble believing that there are secrets that are the real reason that we don't know what's going on.
So I don't trust our government in at all on the Assange situation.
And therefore, because citizens, although not an American citizen, citizens have the presumption of innocence.
So my presumption about Assange is innocent.
And, as you know, one of the things that the bad guys do, if they can't figure out a legal way to take you out, is they come up with a fake sex charge.
So you know Assange had this fake sex charge hanging over him, some rape charge or something?
And do you know why it went away?
Because there was never any evidence for it.
It just went away.
It just, it was fake.
Yeah, so everything that you think is the worst-case scenario, sort of like the Representative Bourget was telling you about the blackmail, if you imagine that they wouldn't cause a fake rape charge to take down an enemy, you're not living in the real world.
Because yeah, they would.
Yeah, they would.
Yeah, Matt Gaetz, perfect example.
Yeah, fake sex charges are a common way to take somebody down.
So my take on Assange is I don't know if he did anything bad.
I don't know.
But the lack of transparency is so disgusting that I am firmly on the you better free him or basically put up or shut up.
Right?
My assumption is everybody is a dirty murderer who wants him to stay where he is.
You're all dirty murderers.
I don't trust anybody who wants him in jail.
If they won't tell you why, I'm open to the argument.
I'm open to the argument.
I can be persuaded.
That he should stay in jail.
But no argue?
Strangely missing?
Nope.
Not buying it for a minute.
He should be freed.
And I'm also curious why Trump didn't do it.
Because you know there was pressure on Trump to do it.
So there's more to the story.
Because the fact that you can't get a Republican or a Democrat to do it, and yet we don't know what's going on?
This thing's all corrupt and dirty.
Well, outgoing Louisiana Governor Edwards, according to the Amuse account on Axe, has decided to pardon 40 murderers.
What?
That can't be possible.
I know for sure that nobody would pardon 40 murderers.
That'd be crazy, right?
No, it says he pardoned 40 murderers.
Now, as Amuse asks, what possible reason?
Well, what's the reason for that?
Now, I do know that when politicians are leaving office and retiring, it's not that unusual to pardon a bunch of people that maybe you think shouldn't be pardoned.
But murderers?
Forty murderers?
You know, it makes me wonder.
If they were, since it was Louisiana, I wonder if they were falsely accused.
Do you think it's like 40 black guys who, who just, the accusations were too weak?
And he's just saying, you know, I'm not even sure any of these people murdered anybody.
It could be.
Yeah.
So I think there's more we need to know about that.
But the question of why are you doing it is the right question.
I'm gonna guess he doesn't think that the cases were strong enough, and that maybe they're relics from a more racist past, and maybe it's just time to set it right.
I don't know.
We'll find out.
Well, Fetterman continues to be interesting.
He thanked President Biden for pardoning certain marijuana offenses, and he called the charges bullshit weed charges.
He said in a statement, he said, A few Christmases ago, as Lieutenant Governor, I pushed for legal weed and delivering pardons for bullshit weed charges.
Okay.
Fetterman, stop it.
Just stop it.
I don't want to love you.
I don't want to love you.
You're making me love you.
I don't like it.
Stop.
Just cut it out.
I love that he wants to pardon the weed people.
I love even more that he calls the charges bullshit.
Cut it out!
Stop it!
Stop it!
Dammit, I love you.
All right.
Ian Miles Chong is reporting that a tribunal in the UK Has ruled that it is not discrimination for a company to rule out white men from being hired.
What?
What?
It's not discrimination to discriminate?
Interesting take.
You'd almost think it's built right into the word there.
Discriminate.
Okay.
But it makes me ask this question, and yes, I'm serious.
I need a backup plan.
If it becomes, you know, if America becomes like South Africa, like what's my backup plan?
Where can a white man go to be safe and to be treated like a full citizen?
Certainly not America.
But where could I go?
Now, I'll tell you where people suggest it.
They said Poland, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Argentina, Iceland, Indonesia.
Bhutan.
Paraguay.
Paraguay for the weed.
UAE.
But here's the problem.
Yeah.
So I'm ruling out New Zealand and Australia because they already went woke.
Thailand.
Thailand's on the list of possibilities.
Antarctica is looking good.
Not a lot of discrimination there.
Except against penguins or something.
Cuba's due for a flip.
Switzerland, you say?
Not so sure.
I think Europe has the Islamicized problem.
I think Europe will probably become Islamic eventually.
And Hungary is too close to Russia for my taste.
Too close.
And New Zealand and Australia too woke.
Iceland, as I told you, Iceland had volcanoes and the whole country melted.
It's all made of ice.
So Iceland doesn't exist anymore because a volcano melted it, so that's out of the question.
No, not really.
It's still there.
Well, Alaska is not a country.
Montenegro.
Yeah, I don't want to be over in that Europe, Eastern Europe area.
Not comfortable with that.
You know what one of the best answers was?
Was Argentina.
Apparently Argentina is Both multi-ethnic and a true melting pot.
Can anybody confirm that?
I've actually heard really good things about Argentina and the people and sort of the social part.
Is that true?
Or is that an exaggeration?
I had a friend who used to travel there just for the women and apparently he had a really, really good time because all you had to do was be an American and walk in the door and suddenly You'd be popular with the ladies.
That's what he said.
Well, Argentina might be a mess in terms of their economy and all that, but if you had your own money, is the culture at least non-discriminatory?
Saudi Arabia.
Philippines.
That's interesting.
Philippines.
Yeah.
So, I don't have plans to move.
But I think, you know, it's just sort of my way to be prepared for everything.
You know, my house was built to withstand, you know, all the common disasters.
And I built in a place that was, you know, free from most of the common disasters.
You know, if I lost my power, I could live.
Right?
The coldest day in California, you know, gets in the 40s.
I can make a fire and put some blankets on me.
I could live.
But if you lose your electricity in Wisconsin in February, like if the whole state loses its power, well, good luck with that.
So I've always picked, tried to pick situations where you have lots of escape.
You can get away, you can survive, you know, all that stuff.
My house has its own water supply.
I don't have to depend on the town.
So, and I've got solar, but I don't have the battery yet.
I need to add a battery backup.
But likewise, I think it is time for white men to at least have a backup plan.
Because I do think America could fall in terms of being safe to live here.
It's not there.
But, you know, these things can be right on the edge for a long time before they flip.
So things could change quickly.
It's good to have a backup plan.
Costa Rica, there are good things about Costa Rica.
But I think that might be more about the lifestyle than it is about lack of discrimination.
Uruguay?
Oh, Uruguay, not Paraguay.
Yeah, Uruguay is the better one than Paraguay, right?
Do I have that right?
Neverland?
Jonesdale?
Yeah, probably not Guyana.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I got for you today.
Thanks for joining.
The best live stream ever.
And YouTube, I will talk to you tomorrow if you're wondering, will I be live streaming on Christmas Day?
What do you think?
Will I be live streaming at the normal time on Christmas Day?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yes, I will.
Because I don't take days off.
So I'll see you on Christmas.
But I'll also see you tomorrow and have a great day.
