Episode 2343 CWSA 01/04/24 News So Juicy I Can't Mention It In This Title. It's That Good!
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, Spain Nuclear, Rolls Royce Nuclear, Small Nuclear Reactor, National Debt Solution, Fatherless Kids, Poverty Exodus, President Biden, Marriage, Vivek Ramaswamy, President Trump, Nikki Haley, Government Corruption & Blackmail, Israel Hamas War, Iran Terrorist Explosions, Epstein Unsealed Documents, Blackmailocracy, Alan Dershowitz, Kamala Harris Equity, Mark Cuban DEI Support, DEI, MSNBC, Christopher Rufo, Rob Reiner's Job, Ibram X. Kendi, Claudine Gay, 2020 Election Allegations, 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 today will be a show of shows.
It will be better than anything you've ever seen and could run a little bit long because of the high quality of all the content.
The news is really serving up some juicy stuff today, so make sure you stay for that.
But first, Would you like to participate in something we call the Simultaneous Sip?
If you do, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chalice, a sty, and a canteen jug or flask, and a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day that makes everything better.
It's called Simultaneous Sip.
And it happens now.
Go.
Well, which of the juicy stories do you want to talk about first? - Let's start with this one.
Apparently, two Chinese laboratories believe they have created so-called room temperature superconductivity.
I know.
I know.
Stop it.
Stop it.
I know what you're going to say.
It's all fake.
Because it's always debunked.
And as soon as you hear one of these stories, it's going to be debunked.
But this one hasn't been debunked yet.
It's brand new.
So there is something different from the last time they had a similar claim.
And the big difference is it's allegedly been duplicated.
So allegedly, two labs have duplicated it.
So that didn't happen before.
Does that mean it's real?
Probably not.
If I had to place a bet?
Probably not.
But it might be.
Kind of exciting.
I like to be excited for as long as it takes until it gets debunked.
Well, I think Spain has decided to follow the example of Germany and get rid of their nuclear plants.
So sell all your stock in Spain and Germany because they've decided to go out of business.
I'd be surprised if they're still really countries in a hundred years.
They'll probably just get absorbed by their neighbors.
It seems like you're planning to be out of business if you're not doing nuclear power.
But speaking of nuclear power, every time we talk about nuclear is bad, and you know, there are countries that are discontinuing it, and how are we going to stop climate change?
There's one story we tend to forget, which is, I'm not positive.
It looks like Rolls-Royce has solved all of the problems of nuclear power.
Are you aware of that?
So Rolls-Royce has other businesses besides cars and one of them is they're making these small modular reactors, SMRs.
So their model is they'll build you a small nuclear power plant and all the parts will remain in the factory.
So instead of trying to build a one-off power plant that's, you know, designed from scratch, which could take 30 years to get approved and, you know, up and running.
The idea is to have these factory-built, small, standardized components that, once you get them approved in a given country, should be fairly easy to just keep reproducing the model.
And so they've got, they already have this.
This is existing technology.
So they've got small reactors that will power a million homes for 60 years.
So one small reactor, a million homes for 60 years.
That is existing stuff.
I feel like climate change is solved.
Is there something wrong with this technology that nobody's talking about?
Because if this works, just do more of this.
That's it.
That's the entire climate change, energy, it would end inflation.
It would basically end inflation.
Because it would reduce the cost of energy so much over time.
That our impossible to pay off debt might actually be possible.
Because the cost of things would go down, might raise some extra money.
And be able to pay stuff off.
It's possible.
So I think the only way out of our debt problems, Vivek Ramaswamy is the only one who has any idea what to do with it.
He says, create more energy in this country.
Get our GDP up with energy.
Because that's the big one.
Energy is the thing you can turn the valve and really turn up your GDP if you're American.
So do it.
And that could help us pay off our debt as well.
Here's some shocking statistics about the percentage of kids without fathers.
So this is from an EndWokeness post, which is a real good follow.
If you're on the X platform, look for an account called EndWokeness.
It's got gold every single day.
It's just good stuff.
Anyway, EndWokeness has tweeted that in 1940, 96% of all children in the U.S.
were born to a mother and a father.
Today, 40% of children are born to a single mother.
40%.
That's 64%.
Jesus Christ!
Really?
64% of black babies are born to a single mother?
Sorry, I didn't mean to curse there.
I couldn't help it.
That is just so shocking.
42% of Hispanic and 24% of white are raised without any father present.
And you know what this doesn't include?
It doesn't include the the other bad situation, which is very common.
Two fathers.
Has anybody encountered that situation?
We've got the natural father who's still in the life of the children, but then there's a stepdad.
So you have two fathers.
Not always twice as good.
Not always twice as good.
Sometimes it's its own set of problems.
Depends on the individuals, actually.
So it can be its own problem, but it could be better as well.
I would like to, once again, say the obvious that nobody wants to deal with.
Yes, the best situation would be two happy parents Raising their children in a household with two parents.
We all pretty much agree with that.
But at what point are you going to realize it's just not going to happen?
And at what point do you say, okay, we need an emergency second kind of a model so kids can be raised without the horror of the current situation.
I mean, every day that we say, Let me close my eyes and say, I'm going to solve the problem by everybody living in a household where you have a happy marriage and everybody stays married.
Okay.
Can we just stop doing that?
That's basically the conservative opinion as well.
If you just find some God, you know, get a little God and turn into a Republican, this would all be solved because then marriage would start working.
No, marriage doesn't work.
Because the economics are bad.
The minute it was economical to get married, there'd be more of it, like there used to be.
And staying married.
So we need a new system to take care of those who will never be in the two-parent situation.
Because we don't want fewer kids.
The conservative method would be all these unmarried people don't have children.
That would literally be the end of the country.
If we weren't having fatherless kids, we wouldn't be having enough kids, not even close.
The whole place would fall apart.
This population collapse is one of the big existential risks.
Well, on the plus side, some might say, there's a caravan of 15,000 people called the Poverty Caravan that's preparing to cross our border, mostly Mexican citizens.
So that's the bad news.
The bad news is that 15,000 poor people are crossing the border into the United States, on top of the 300,000 or so that came in the past month.
So that's the bad news.
The worst news is that all 15,000 poor people from Mexico will be getting directing jobs for their own Star Wars sequels.
So that's the worst news.
Okay.
I'll just keep going and you can decide which of these news stories is real and which are not.
It's going to be hard to tell.
I know.
It's going to be a little hard to sort them out, but you could do it.
All right.
I tweeted yesterday, why can't the president, any president, whether it's Biden or Trump, why can't they use an executive order to close the border?
Now, I get that there are asylum laws.
So the law says that we have to process them.
If they come in through the asylum port.
But are you telling me that the head of our military cannot declare that it's a military homeland security problem and just treat it as a military security problem?
What's the point of having, you know, the head of your military be the president if they can't do military stuff when they need to?
So I guess some Republicans went to the border and House Speaker Mike Johnson basically said the same thing.
He said the same thing I did, although he's got a different spin on it, that Biden created the problem with an executive order.
The reason things are so bad is the executive order to get rid of the Remain in Mexico thing.
Apparently he undid that and then that opened the floodgates.
So yes, you could use an executive order to reverse other executive orders, but why would you even do that?
Why are you even playing around with these little laws?
Just declare it a security emergency and treat it like it's a military emergency, because it is.
It's an existential threat, not yet.
If we stop today, we can absorb the people who came in.
You know, there might be more crime, there might be some terrorists who got in.
Well, we could survive with the number who have already gotten in.
We're not going to die because of the ones who are already in.
But, if we don't slow down the flow really quickly, we can't do it forever.
You know, it's not sustainable in even a little bit.
So, you know, I'm pretty sure it'll end by Election Day, one way or the other.
But yes, the president can do an executive order and end it tomorrow.
The fact that Biden isn't doing it suggests corruption.
It suggests blackmail and or corruption or both.
And now Biden is suing Texas because Texas made their own law to make it illegal to enter Texas.
And now the federal government is suing Texas We're preventing illegal people from entering the country.
Now this is what the third or fourth time they sued Texas for trying to put up their own barriers.
So I think it's the fourth or fifth time Texas tried to stop illegal immigration in their state and the federal government put their resources and time and money into stopping the stopping of the illegal immigration.
Now can you think of any reason why the federal government would do that?
There's only one.
Corruption.
There is only one.
Can we stop pretending there's another reason for this?
Why are we pretending this is some kind of political thing?
It's clearly not political.
It is clearly either blackmail or corruption of some kind, which is corruption.
We should just give up I'm pretending this has to do with the internal politics of the Democrats.
Oh, the Democrat leader has to keep happy, you know, the left.
That's not happening.
That is not what's happening.
This is clearly corruption.
Do you all agree?
To be so obvious that it's just screaming at you.
Clearly corruption.
There's no other reason for the border situation.
If you tell me you have some other explanation for it, Good luck.
What is this, something like two-thirds of the citizens want it reversed?
Two-thirds.
We probably don't have, there are only a few issues that are even close to that kind of agreement in this country.
It's not a political question.
Stop calling it political.
It's just corruption.
That's all it is.
It's just corruption.
Well, So let's see what else is happening.
Pew Research says that one quarter of 40 year olds in the United States have never been married, and that's a new high.
And I saw Benjamin Carlson ask on the X platform, he said, this is stunning, why are Americans giving up on marriage?
Is that the right question?
Is that the question you immediately ask when you see that there's so many unmarried people?
Why are Americans giving up on marriage?
That's not the question I was going to ask.
The question I would ask is, given the way marriage is designed, why would you do it?
You know, now I've been married twice, and I've told you why I did it.
I did it to make it more efficient to give my money away.
Literally.
To make it more efficient to give my money away.
Because I had more than I needed.
And I wanted to be in a family situation.
I thought that would be more rewarding.
And so I wanted to create a situation where it would be easy legally and economically to transfer money to other people.
So for me it worked.
Now some people say, but Scott, you failed twice.
To which I say, what?
Wouldn't I know that if I failed twice?
I feel like I succeeded twice.
Because there were two situations I wanted to get into.
I wanted to transfer my money.
Not all of it.
I kept most of it, in case you're wondering.
I did keep most of it.
And so I did that twice.
And I wouldn't take back either time.
Wouldn't take it back at all.
So to me, that was two successes.
If you started two companies and then sold them and then you went on to another company, you wouldn't say you failed because you're not still in that old company.
It would depend on what you intended to do when you started out.
And what I intended to do, I succeeded at.
How much did I think I would be married forever?
Not really.
I mean, it was a goal.
I held it as a target.
I didn't really expect it.
In the way the system works, expecting a rich person to stay married to a younger woman, That's really, that's a lot to expect.
So I didn't expect it.
I wanted it, but I didn't expect it.
All right, so we need to figure out some system where all these unmarried people can live some kind of fulfilling life.
How many of you saw the viral video of Vivek Ramaswamy disemboweling a Washington Post reporter who asked him to disavow white supremacy?
Instead of taking the bait, he just eviscerated her on video and it became a sensation.
Now, I posted, I can't remember if I read this to you, Where I only did it in the man cave separately.
But here's what I said after watching that video.
We saw Vivek display a level of capability that we've actually never seen before.
We've never seen this.
We've never seen somebody operating at this level.
Now, maybe it's not your choice.
You may choose another candidate.
I understand that.
But you've never seen anybody operate with this level of capability.
And that just has to be called out.
I love the fact that America can still produce a Vivek.
Right?
We're not dead yet.
America still has a little kick.
We're still alive.
Still got some play.
But here's what I said in a longish post.
I said, one presidential candidate is head and shoulders above the others in both energy and capability.
Now, I chose not to put the name in it, because if it's not obvious to you, you're not paying attention.
And I said, you all know it, but Trump's third act is calling too, and that's not nothing.
The three best choices for president are Republicans this time.
Trump, Vivek, and DeSantis.
I don't count Haley as a top three.
Now, in my opinion, the fact that the best three candidates are Republican Makes Trump assassination-proof.
And that's a big deal.
Because there are a lot of smart, independent people who are saying, you know what?
And this is sort of Tucker Carlson's thesis.
They've tried everything else.
And they've said very clearly that they're going to try everything they need to do to keep him out of office.
So the hint is very thick that very bad actors might try to do something very illegal.
Now, would they do that if they thought that the people who might come in behind him to replace him would be as bad as, or maybe worse, from their perspective?
And the answer is, that's why, you know, George Bush Senior had Dan Quayle.
You know, the joke was it made him assassination proof.
Now that was a joke, but in this case there's something to it.
Let me ask you this.
Would the Deep State Democrats be more afraid of a second term of Trump, which would scare them, or imagine something bad happening to Trump because of bad actors, and then either a DeSantis or a Vivek coming into office after that?
Because that would be the license to do anything.
If something took out Trump, With violence, I guarantee you're getting a Republican president.
If it happens before the election, I guarantee you get a Republican president.
And it's going to be one of the top three.
And do you think that they would be less effective if Trump got taken out?
No, if Trump gets taken out, it's going to be war.
But legal, legal war.
Uh, whichever Republican would come in behind him, should such a horrible thing happen, we hope it doesn't.
But should that happen, the, the incoming Republican would have the, the sword of all swords.
Like the public would just say, do what you need to do.
Like, just tell us when you're done, start chopping.
So I, I think the public, that would be all of you.
I think you did what the public should have done.
I think the public just wrapped Trump in a protective bubble wrap.
While we were watching, it sort of snuck up on me.
I didn't quite realize what was happening until yesterday, and I realized, you know what?
When you've got a Vivek out there just lighting up the social media world with capability, just pure brainpower and capability, and patriotism, and you've got the strongest governor In recent memory, DeSantis, who's not killing it in terms of campaigning, he's obviously underperforming there, but nobody thinks he would be a bad president.
Nobody thinks that.
I mean, Republicans don't.
Nobody thinks he'd be a bad president.
So, be careful what you wish for.
If anything happens that takes Trump out, whether it's in a legal sense or whether it's worse, you've got the The angels of death right behind him.
So I submit to you that you, the public, have done your job and you have protected the Republic.
Good job.
2024 is coming in like a lion.
Anyways, there's a poll that puts... Let's see, who is it?
Who polled this?
Real clear politics.
They got a poll that says Haley's in second place after Trump.
Now that sounds more than it is, right?
If you hear that Haley's in second place, you say to yourself, holy cow!
Like, this could be really something.
But it's not exactly what it looks like.
What actually happens, it looks like Trump took DeSantis' support.
So it dropped DeSantis.
So he's so low that both DeSantis and Haley are in that 10% range.
But Haley has a little bit more.
So basically, they're both in the round to zero.
But it's reported as she's in second place.
But it rounds to zero.
Both of them.
Now, Vivek is even behind them.
But the difference is, in my opinion, Vivek is pulling lower than both of them because both DeSantis and Haley look like something like an alternative to Trump.
Would you agree?
People see them as like an alternative to Trump, whereas Vivek looks like an improved Trump.
He's like Trump 2.0, meaning that he can bring you the good stuff without the provocation because he knows how to avoid it.
So I think that Vivek's numbers are artificially suppressed because Trump is everybody's first choice who would also like what Vivek has to offer.
So in my opinion, if something happened, I hope it doesn't, but if something happened to Trump before the primaries are over, I think Vivek would immediately jump to first place.
Now that's, it's just a feeling, but it's a feeling based on how close he is to Trump and the fact that if Trump, you know, is alive when something bad happens, he would endorse him.
I'm pretty sure that Trump would endorse Vivek if for some reason health Or anything else, he had to drop out.
So I think he would go right to number one.
So anybody who's writing Vivek off because of his poll numbers, I think you're missing the big story.
That he's sitting there like a, like a freaking whale.
Right?
If you think his, his participation is trivial, because of his numbers, you're missing the whale.
There's a whale just sitting there, just waiting.
And it wouldn't take much for the whale to, Me in first place.
All right.
It looks like Biden is going for what I call the narrow ravine strategy.
Which is he's taking the worst possible attack and he's going to make that his centerpiece.
The worst attack is to call January 6th an insurrection and try to pin that on Trump to suppress his votes.
Here's why that's the worst.
Because unlike the other fake news that Biden has pushed, he can't simply claim it's true.
Now, you know, remember the fine people hoax?
Biden could just say it's true.
He could just say that's true.
And then other people would say that's not true.
And it would sound like it's your word against mine.
And then you people just Back their side.
So he can make ridiculous claims about Trump said you should drink bleach, which he didn't.
You know, that kind of stuff.
But what's different about January 6 is how mockable it is.
Because it would have been hard to mock somebody who said that Trump called neo-Nazis fine people.
Because then you have to kind of untangle all the ugliness of the whole event.
It just gets complicated.
And then it turns into, well, who was there?
Could there be any good people there?
It just gets ugly.
And then the one about the bleach, again, if you tried to understand what really happened, it was a real technology at the time.
It gets ugly and complicated.
But here's what happens if you imagine this picture.
Imagine Biden and Trump debating.
Biden, of course, brings up January 6 and calls it an insurrection.
Now just imagine us.
Now it's Trump's turn to talk and he turns to Biden and he says, you know, I would love you to explain to the American public how you connect the dots between capturing a lectern and sauntering around taking selfies and gaining control of the nuclear triad.
Can you explain to us how the unarmed Republicans were planning to take over the U.S.
military and control of the country And can you explain how I thought that would work?
Because you seem to be a mind reader.
Can you explain what you think I was thinking that would allow me to think that some people protesting in front of one building, unarmed, could somehow turn that into controlling the government of the United States?
Mr. Biden, can you explain that to the American people?
And then laugh.
Then fucking laugh.
And just mock him.
So that's what the narrow ravine is.
The January 6th thing is the most mockable attack yet.
Because it's just so obviously untrue.
With the other ones, you have to make an appeal to facts.
With January 6th, you don't need to introduce any facts.
Because everybody watching knows that you can't really conquer a country by walking around.
That doesn't require any persuasion.
You just have to say it in public, in front of Biden, and watch him lose his shit in front of the country.
I mean, literally, Biden would shit his fucking pants on national TV if Trump ever just started mocking him for how stupid that is.
It would be the greatest show on Earth.
And it's probably coming.
Let me ask you this.
You don't think Trump has figured out by now That line of attack?
You don't think he knows that if Biden commits to the narrow ravine that the mockery cannons are going to come out?
Oh yeah, mockery cannons coming out.
All right, Joel Pollack points out that a bunch of anti-Israel radicals staged an insurrection at the California State Assembly.
And they took it over and they shut down the first day of the legislature session, and they forced the lawmakers to flee.
So, as you would expect, all of these people who interfered with a government process, they've all been rounded up, and there's a huge committee being formed, and they're all being arrested, and they probably have lengthy jail terms.
Oh, maybe not.
No, actually, I read it wrong.
It turns out that there were no arrests.
So, that seems fair, right?
Now, how in the world can Biden's narrow ravine thing work in the face of Democrats continually shutting down state lawmakers?
It's not even the first time it's happened.
It's becoming laughable and once it becomes fully like just laughable, it's right on the edge right now, but I think Trump can push it over, then that's all you need.
It just needs to be more laughable.
Apparently there's some kind of a Foreign honeypot scheme with prostitutes in D.C.
that's just been surfaced.
The D.C.
elites being trapped in honeypots, people think.
Not quite sure.
They know it's prostitution.
But they don't know for sure if there's any foreign stuff.
Caesar is asking me in very loud, very loudly, Scott!
Question!
Do you know who Michael LaVaughn Robinson is?
Answer?
Nope.
Never heard of him.
Thanks for asking.
Anyway, do you ever get the feeling that our entire country is really a blackmailocracy?
Meaning that there's absolutely nothing happening in our government that isn't the result of corruption or blackmail?
Because it feels like everything is.
Like, uh, like actually everything?
Can you tell me why TikTok hasn't been banned?
Corruption.
Blackmail.
There's no other reason.
Can you tell me why the border hasn't been secured?
Corruption.
Blackmail.
There isn't any other reason.
There is no other reason.
You know why we haven't stopped fentanyl?
A little bit of incompetence, but probably some blackmail, probably some corruption.
In fact, I don't know anything that isn't a problem of blackmail or corruption.
It looks like everything is at this point.
Now, here's something I've said before, but I'm going to double down on.
Any modern country that also has a really good intelligence service will eventually be run by the intelligence service.
It can't not happen.
By design, it's kind of guaranteed.
Here's why it's guaranteed.
Imagine I told you, all right, here's something you're going to invent.
You're going to invent a government system where there's a government and they're elected.
But separately, you're going to have a really high quality intelligence service working for you.
Now their job will be to use influence and all kinds of dirty tricks and money and bribery and blackmail to affect the elections in other countries.
Now they're also allowed to work here and they can, you know, influence our people.
And then you wait.
What would that system guarantee?
Well, the design of that system guarantees that the people who are trained To take over countries without getting caught, and change their government without getting caught, will eventually, maybe not on day one, but eventually as different people come in, somebody's going to get the idea, hey, why don't we just take over this country?
Because we know how.
In theory, your intelligence chiefs should come to own all of the politicians.
They should.
In the normal course of things, that's how that system design should work.
So on day one, maybe no problem at all.
But eventually you get a J. Edgar Hoover situation where the intelligence definitely knows too much about the bad behavior of the politicians.
At that point, did we get the 34-minute glitch?
Yeah, I just saw it myself.
34-minute glitch.
We still don't know what that is, but every day the podcast glitches on two different platforms running on different devices.
These are different platforms on different devices.
The only thing common is my Wi-Fi, but it doesn't go down, so I don't know what's going on.
Anyway, Let's talk about some more stuff.
There's some commander in an Iran-affiliated Iraqi militia who got killed by a drone strike in Baghdad.
It looks to me like Israel and maybe the United States have decided that they now have a free pass to take out all Iranian proxies everywhere.
Does it feel like that to you?
Because I think they do actually have a free pass to take out all Iranian proxies anywhere in the world.
So they kill one of Hamas people in Beirut.
Did you see what Hamas said?
No, I mean Hezbollah.
So Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Somebody gets killed in, you know, basically their territory in Beirut.
And you know what they said?
Oh, if you keep doing stuff like this, there's no telling what we'll do.
They basically didn't do a fucking thing.
They just took it.
Because it wasn't really them.
Hezbollah is not Hamas.
So killing a Hamas person in Hezbollah territory, all that gets you is some words.
Ah, don't do that.
We could do something, maybe, if you kept it up.
So Hezbollah basically seems totally defanged, because you know what Hezbollah knows?
Let me tell you what Hezbollah knows, because I know it, too.
And you probably know it, too.
They're about one rocket away from being fucking destroyed.
They've never been this close to being absolutely obliterated.
Because you know what Israel's not doing this month?
They're not taking any shit from anybody.
The fuck around and find out period is now completely into find out.
There's no fuck around anymore.
Now you're just finding out.
Hezbollah should know that although they could do a lot of damage to Israel, they have tens of thousands of missiles, apparently.
They could do a lot of damage.
But if they do, Israel's not going to just poke them back in an equal way, right?
If Hezbollah sends, you know, X number of rockets, Israel's just going to say, all right, now we have to kill everyone.
We're going to hunt you down and kill every one of you, however long it takes.
Because that's what they're doing with Iran.
And most reasonable observers are saying, yeah, they kind of have to do that.
So I think, I think they have Hezbollah completely frightened, you know, with the United States help, I'm sure, so that they're just going to sit back.
I also think that they can kill as many Iranian proxies as they want.
And Iran is going to stand down.
Because it's just a free pass.
I think you're going to see Iranian proxies just drop like flies, and it's not going to stop.
It's just going to be, you know, one or two a week, and you'll just get tired of the news.
The news will start sounding the same.
A Hamas leader was killed by a drone strike, number 23 this month.
It's not going to stop.
All right.
There were two big terrorist kind of explosions that happened in Iran at the funeral for the military guy who got taken out and Israel declined to comment on whether they were involved.
Do I have that news right?
I believe they declined to say they didn't do it.
Is that right?
They declined to say it wasn't them.
Isn't that interesting?
Why would they do that?
Now, I don't think that they would do it directly.
I don't think there's any chance that they, you know, set the bomb with an Israeli operative or something like that.
I do think it would be a real interesting strategy If Iran is the terror capital of the world, if Israel just said, you know what?
The seal is off.
Everything's on the table now.
Now, I don't know that they're saying that, but they could.
I mean, you could understand they would say it.
To me, it looks like they have, Israel is funding terrorists within Iran, and they're just going to say, we're going to fucking kill all of you.
We're going to blow up everything in your country.
Through proxies, as long as you keep funding proxies that are killing us, we're going to fund terrorists in your own country.
We're going to fund Arab terrorists, well not Arab, but let's say terrorists in Iran, until you stop.
Now let me ask you this, if you were Israel, and you had gotten to this point, you know, where Iran has funded Hamas and all these bad characters, Would you have any reservations about funding terrorists in Iran if you were Israel?
I have reservations.
But would you?
If you were Israel?
I think I'd do it.
Now, from my perspective, you know, I'm not in Israel and I did not suffer through October 7th.
If I had, I'm sure I'd be in favor of terrorism in Iran.
I hate to say it.
But, you know, that kind of violence changes you.
You're not the same person after that.
Like, I don't think America was the same after 9-11.
I don't think we're the same after Pearl Harbor.
And I don't think Israel will ever be the same after October 7th.
So, would Israel... I think Israel wants Iran to know that they are not completely innocent of this, but maybe didn't do it directly.
It feels like Israel wants them to know this is their future.
Don't you think?
And the people that they killed were the supporters of the person they already killed.
Do you think Israel is too concerned about killing citizens who were lionizing and supporting the terrorist that was killing Israelis?
Probably not.
Probably not so much.
Now, I don't want to read any minds, but I put myself in their position, and if I had lived through October 7, the way they did, all of my filters would be gone.
I'd just say, do what you need to do.
Whatever it takes, do what you need to do.
It looks like that's what's happening.
So, as you know, a bunch of names have been released because there was a lawsuit that Secret until now that Virginia Jeffrey person so I guess that those legal documents around and they include a bunch of references to famous people now my first thought was I wasn't going to mention any of the famous people because They're not They're not charged with anything.
They don't seem to have a direct evidence of crimes the the one they had a direct Evidence of a crime has already been cleared.
So the only one where there were some details that he did some bad stuff were allegations against Alan Dershowitz that, as Chris Cuomo pointed out, were dropped because of lack of corroboration.
In other words, there was nobody else who seemed to think Alan Dershowitz did that, and there must have been enough people involved with the island with Epstein That if it were true that he had that much naughty behavior, it does seem likely that some other person would corroborate it.
So there's no corroboration, and I guess she dropped her, she actually withdrew her allegations, if I understand correctly.
Can somebody confirm that?
Didn't the woman who was mentioning him in these documents that we now see, did she not, she, yeah, right.
She actually took back her accusations.
So Chris Cuomo knew that and wanted to point it out to some bad actors who didn't want to point it out.
You can talk about this case without mentioning that Epstein was number one, that Dershowitz was first of all Epstein's lawyer, which is all the reason you need to spend time with him, including on his jet.
There's probably a lot of business gets done, you know, traveling back and forth if you're in that kind of world.
Now, am I telling you that I know that Dershowitz is either guilty or not guilty?
I don't know.
I just know we live in a world where it's hard to believe anything.
So I'm going to give you, I don't know, but I'm also going to give you forcefully innocent until proven guilty.
Innocent until proven guilty.
We just can't abandon that.
Like, just because it's on social media and just because it's in the news, we can't just act like these people are guilty.
We just can't.
Just don't do it.
So I wasn't going to mention them until I realized there was a kind of a pattern.
We'll see if you can catch it.
I'm going to read the names of people who were mentioned, and I emphasize again, none of the names I read Have any credible accusations of criminal activity in my opinion.
I'm not aware of any credible allegations against any of them.
So the fact that they're mentioned often they were mentioned in the you didn't do anything.
So for example, Trump is mentioned but the context is that there's no indication.
He had any bad behavior wasn't on the island.
So they're mentioned.
But sometimes they're mentioned in the context of clearing them.
But I want to ask you if you see any commonality with these names.
So these are just names mentioned, again, not people who were accused of anything.
They're just mentioned.
Trump, Bill Clinton, there's some Stephen Hawkins, but it can't be these Stephen Hawkins, so I don't know about that one.
There's this Pritzker guy, who some say is connected with organized crime and has a sketchy background.
There's Michael Jackson, David Copperfield, Prince Andrew, Bill Gates separately.
We know he had some connections.
I don't think he was mentioned in this one.
Alan Dershowitz, we talked about.
Glenn Dubin, he's a billionaire hedge fund manager.
And Kevin Spacey.
Now, when you hear all those names, what jumps out?
What do they all have in common?
No.
Do you see it yet?
They all have something in common.
No.
I see all your guesses.
No.
No.
You don't see it?
It doesn't jump right out at you?
Okay, I think somebody got it.
I think somebody got it.
If you were Let me put it in this terms, you'll see it right away.
If I said to you, hey, we're going to start a blackmail operation.
And somebody says, of who?
You say, anybody we can get.
Anybody we can get.
We're going to, if they're a famous person, we're going to try to blackmail them.
We'll get as many as we can.
We'll get celebrities, we'll get politicians, just anybody we can get.
All right.
Where are you going to start?
Where would you start your blackmail operation?
Would you say, I think we can get Mike Pence?
No, no, you wouldn't start with Mike Pence because Mike Pence won't even have lunch with somebody who's not his wife.
You would say to yourself, okay, nobody knows what anybody's doing in their private life, but that would be a low, a low probability play.
Kind of a waste of the time, right?
Wouldn't you think?
Now I'm going to give you another name and you tell me if you think maybe there'd be a good chance of blackmail.
Kevin Spacey.
Kevin Spacey.
Michael Jackson.
Do you think there's any chance you could blackmail any of those guys?
Bill Clinton.
Bill Gates.
Do you think they're blackmailable?
David Copperfield.
Hasn't David Copperfield been accused of some things?
Prince Andrew, do you think there's any male member of the royal family that's not blackmailable?
You should watch The Crown.
That series, The Crown.
And then you tell me if there's any male member of the royal family you think is not blackmailable.
All right.
I don't know this billionaire hedge fund manager, but let me ask you, generally speaking, how many billionaire hedge fund managers do you think are blackmailable?
Oh, probably a few.
Not all of them.
Not all of them.
Oh, but probably a few.
So, is it my imagination, or is it obvious to you that the names mentioned Have that weird quality that if you were going to guess who could be blackmailed, they would be at the top of your list.
Does that seem like a coincidence?
Is that just a coincidence that they all look like they could be blackmailed?
Now, again, I want to be as careful as I can about this because these are innocent people.
By our system, every person mentioned, completely innocent until proven guilty.
And I don't think that's going to happen.
So, I'm not saying that any of these people did things which make them blackmailable.
I'm saying that if I were to guess who I might be able to blackmail, that would be my first choices.
Every one of them.
So, how many of you saw that?
How many of you saw that immediately they all had that quality of, at least I think I could blackmail them?
How many of you saw that?
Because I think that's the big reveal.
To me that almost guarantees that it was a blackmail operation, which we all kind of assumed.
All right.
Here's some more.
I saw, I guess it was about 10 months ago, Alan Dershowitz did an interview in which he was asked directly by Kim Iverson, who was interviewing him, if Epstein was working for Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency.
So here's what Dershowitz answered when asked if Epstein works for Mossad.
Now, let me ask you, if you knew the answer to that question, and I'm sure Dershowitz does, do you think that's true?
Do you think Dershowitz knows the real answer to that question?
Like for sure?
Yeah.
Now, the first thing that Dershowitz pointed out Is that he himself has been working for Israel since before Kim Iverson was born.
He's so good at this.
Dershowitz is so good.
That was exactly the right answer to say, I worked for Israel since before you were born.
So, right.
So now the first thing you know about Dershowitz is he will quite proudly tell you that he has been working for publicly.
There is no secret.
Publicly, he has supported Israel.
He's one of the greatest supporters.
He worked with them in a variety of ways.
Now, so you know he's pro-Israel and more pro-Israel than even pro-Israel people are.
He's about as pro-Israel as you can get.
So when he was asked if Epstein was working for Mossad, Dershowitz said that Mossad would never hire him.
No, he definitely did not work for Mossad.
They would never hire him.
Do you see it?
Do you see how much of a lawyer answer that is?
Why would you give a lawyer answer to that if the real answer was no?
If you knew the answer, and you knew the answer was no, why would you answer it in a hypothetical that they would never hire him?
And let me ask you this.
Is anybody suggesting they hired him and gave him a paycheck?
Is anybody suggesting that when Epstein did his W2, his 1099, he had to write down, and Mossad paid me $10 billion?
No.
That's not the way anything works.
Do you know how, who knows that that's not the way anything works?
Who knows that besides me and now you?
Alan Dershowitz.
He knows nothing works that way.
So why did he answer the question that way?
Why would he answer the question that they didn't hire him when they know damn well it's not a hiring situation?
It would be, let's say, associates working for a common, not common, but their own purposes.
Yeah.
Trust me, there's no piece of paper.
There's no piece of paper.
That's not how anything works.
If he were working for Mossad, it was a favor for favor situation, or possibly cash in some way that we can't trace.
But probably, probably he got to extract money from his victims, had some kind of cover from somebody.
And by the way, even if Mossad was working with him, and I don't know for sure, That doesn't mean that there were no other intelligence agencies also working with him.
It doesn't mean that America wasn't.
We don't know.
But given that Dershowitz is a master of communication, I would say that if he meant to say that Epstein had never had any connection with Mossad, he would have said something like, I can tell you for sure, because I've known him forever, he's my client, I work with Israel, And there's no indication that he ever had any association with, worked with, did a favor for, had conversations with, met with, or any connection with Mossad.
That's how you would answer it, if the answer is no.
Do you know how you answer it if the answer is yes, he definitely was working with Mossad?
They would never hire him.
That's how you would answer it if the answer is yes.
They would never hire him.
Because indeed, that's true.
They would never hire him.
They would never make him go through HR and get a paycheck.
Absolutely true.
So I consider it confirmation that he worked for Mossad.
I consider the names on the list confirmation, at least in my own personal opinion, that it was a blackmail operation.
I would not say that Mossad is necessarily his only influence or the only reason he did anything, but probably had some connections.
Probably.
All right.
So again, I say, I think I live in a blackmailocracy.
I don't think this is a republic.
I think we actually are a network of blackmailed, corrupt people who somehow work as a system still.
But blackmail is the dominant element of our government, is my opinion at the moment.
Kamala Harris defined equity for us.
She just said, quote, it means everyone ends up in the same place.
And that's what she wants.
She wants everybody to end up in the same place.
Now, that was good news for me.
Because, honestly, I never thought I could be a fucking incompetent vice president.
But apparently I'm going to have a shot at it.
Because equity requires that someday I will be a fucking incompetent vice president.
Because everybody ends up in the same place.
Did I understand her wrong?
I hope I didn't misinterpret her.
But I think I can be a fucking idiot, too, and also a vice president.
Equity.
Well, Mark Cuban weighed in on DEI, and he disagrees with Musk, who thinks DEI is a form of discrimination and racism.
And he's in favor of DEI.
Now, let me ask you this.
If I told you there was a certain billionaire who was very smart, And recently sold his interest in a major basketball team that was his greatest love, but he sold it.
Made a nice profit, but he sold it.
And then publicly came out in favor of DEI.
What would you say about that billionaire?
What is he preparing to do?
Well to me it looks like he's the Democrat candidate under glass.
He's the emergency candidate.
I know we all think that Newsom is the emergency candidate, but here's what I suspect.
You know how I said we're a black maleocracy?
Can you imagine how much we don't know about Governor Newsom that maybe somebody does know?
I'm concerned that the Democrats don't think Newsom can get the ball over the goal line, because there might be too much, what do you call it, research about the enemy?
What's that called?
Opposition research.
There might be some opposition research that's sort of just sitting there waiting, because you wouldn't release the opposition research, the oppo, you wouldn't release that too early, because you'd want to make sure he was in the race, Before you, you know, you shoot your wad.
So it could be the Democrats secretly know Newsom can't get the ball in the end zone.
So they needed an emergency, break the glass, last minute candidate who is name recognition, widely recognized as not a super partisan, you know, more of a entrepreneurial person.
And To me, it's very suspicious that he would sell his beloved basketball team, which is exactly what you'd want to do if you're going to run for office, because he would be savaged in his business life for anything he does in politics.
And you would need to come out in favor of DEI if you're going to run as a Democrat.
And I want to give you this further evidence.
Since I think all of you are on the same page that supporting DEI is so stupid that how in the world could somebody like Mark Cuban, who is unambiguously very smart, support DEI when DEI is clearly stupid and unproductive and evil?
So I'm going to read you his support for it, and I want you to look for this.
Does that sound like a quality argument that you would expect from somebody like Mark Cuban?
Very smart, very accomplished, Super knowledgeable.
Does that sound like, does that sound like Mark Cuban?
Or does it sound like something some bullshit candidate would say when he's running for office?
Because he's not really invested in, you know, DEI in his business life, you know, more than making his companies happy, I suppose.
I mean, it's not like something he needs to fight for, especially poorly, right?
So I'm going to read his defense of DEI and see if it feels persuasive and on point.
He says two things.
Number one, diversity.
Good businesses look where others don't to find the employees that will put your business in the best possible position to succeed.
You may not agree.
But I take it as a given that there are people of various races, ethnicities, orientations, etc.
that are regularly excluded from hiring consideration.
By extending our hiring search to include them, we can find people that are more qualified.
The loss of DEI-phobic companies is my gain.
Does that sound pretty persuasive?
What's he leaving out?
He seems to think that there's a secret cache of unemployed, high-quality people that fit these various DEI categories.
He thinks they're just waiting to be found.
Do you think he believes that?
Do you think that Mark Cuban believes that if a company just tries harder and looks a little deeper, they can get equally qualified People who have been hiding or have been overlooked because your company is racist and doesn't look in the right places.
Do you think he really believes that?
Now, I can't read his mind, but I'm going to say that what he said here is so obviously stupid that it doesn't match who he is.
There's no way his brain came up with this and then thought it was good.
I don't believe that.
To me, it's a pretty strong signal that he likes diversity, which I do as well.
Diversity is good.
But Illinois is trying too hard.
They very much look like positioning for a political candidate under glass situation.
By the way, if he hears this, he's gonna be really mad at me.
Either because I'm wrong or because I'm right.
But either way, he's not gonna like it.
So Mark, if you're listening, I apologize in advance, but this is my honest opinion.
Then he says another point.
He says, we live in a country with very diverse demographics.
In this area where trusted businesses can be hard to come by, people tend to connect more easily to people who are like them.
Having a workforce as diverse and representative of our stakeholders is good for business.
Now, that's a tough argument to make.
Because to make the argument, you have to make the argument that people are different because of their ethnic and other differences.
That they're genuinely different and they act differently.
And do we believe that the only way that they're genuinely differently and they act differently is that some of them have more insight?
That that's the main way they act differently?
That they have more insight?
I don't know, it's kind of a sketchy argument, but I would say that 100% of companies agree with his main point here, which is that if everything was equal, every company would like diversity.
Do you agree?
If there was no issue with the performance of the employees, wouldn't every employee like diversity?
He acts as though there's somebody who doesn't want it.
Because his argument is solid.
In a world that is diverse, it is absolutely an advantage if the people who use your company can look at you and say, oh, that looks like the public.
I'm comfortable with you people.
So everybody understands that if you could achieve diversity without giving something up, everybody would want it.
But how do you all fish in the same little waterhole and not overfish it?
So it's basically an overfishing problem, which he ignores, and he obviously knows it's a real problem.
So that's why I don't believe this video.
Anyway.
We'll see if that's just me being crazy.
Here's more on DEI.
Axio says that cutbacks in DEI could lead to a decline in diversity in organizations.
Well, I think it would.
And then one recent study found that companies with DEI teams make more diverse hires and have higher levels of employee morale.
Do you think that's true?
Do you think that groups with DEI have higher morale?
And is that for all the employees?
Were the white men in companies where they brought in DEI, were the white men happier?
Do you believe this?
This sounds ridiculous.
I don't believe the DEI makes anybody happier.
In fact, I will go further, and I'll bet DEI makes the minority employees less happy.
You know why?
If you're a high capability employee, and you see that the DEI people are bringing in lower quality people, because it's a small pool everybody's fishing from, not because they're lower quality in general, just a smaller pool, it's just math.
Wouldn't you think, oh shoot, now people are going to think I'm a diversity hire.
Because of all the real diversity hires, they're going to think I'm one too, and I'm not.
I actually have qualifications.
So, how does that improve your morale?
I can't imagine that improving your morale.
At all.
Anyway.
MSNBC tried to do a hit piece on Christopher Ruffo, who, as you know, is one of the main, if not the main person fighting against DEI and CRT and ESG.
And so as Christopher reposted, so MSNBC ran a four minute segment, which is a lot on television, four minutes recapping all of the evil things that Christopher Rufo did, except that it reads like a best of, you know, best hits, success thing.
Like everything they mentioned, like they try to, they try to act with their words, like it's really bad.
But then when they describe what it is, I think, well, that was really good.
That's like a big success.
Then they'll go to the next one, and I'll think, okay, you're using words to make it sound bad, but all he did was get rid of racism.
Why are you making it sound bad?
So there, Axios is trying pretty hard, and MSNBC is trying harder, but everything's pointing in one direction at this point.
I think DEI is on its way out.
Bill Ackman tried to dump on it.
Elon Musk is dumping on it.
I'm dumping on it.
Mivek, Ramaswamy, Trump, probably DeSantis.
They're all dumping on it.
So DEI looks bad.
Now, let's talk about Rob Reiner who got up early this morning and said this.
So ask yourself why a Hollywood power broker would get up and need to tweet this, because it's something you've never heard before.
All right, here it is.
Rob Reiner.
The fact that Trump lies as easily as he breathes doesn't change the fact that he led a violent insurrection to overthrow the United States government.
American democracy will not survive with him in the White House.
Now, what did he add to the public discourse with that?
Nothing.
It's just stuff he says.
So it referenced no new information.
And it's sort of generic.
Now, let me ask you this.
You're all aware that the CIA used to co-opt Hollywood power brokers to make movies and TV shows and stuff that would show the United States in a good light.
And, you know, would be the brainwashing of the country.
Now do you think that stopped?
Do you think they maybe still do it or no?
Why would it stop?
Why would it stop?
It's not illegal apparently.
It's still legal.
Why would it stop?
It worked before.
Now I'm going to read this again and I'm going to ask you to listen to it this time and ask yourself is this a man Who deeply believes this and just needs to say it over and over again, or does it look like he's doing it as a job?
Let me read it and see if this sounds like somebody speaking from the heart or somebody who is paid to complain about Trump non-stop.
I'll read it again.
The fact that Trump lies as easily as he breathes doesn't change the fact that he led a violent insurrection to overthrow the United States government.
American democracy will not survive with him in the White House.
Doesn't that sound like a job?
It has that feeling to it, doesn't it?
Like, like he just woke up and got a paycheck.
Now, I doubt he's being paid, because same reason I doubt that Epstein got paid.
It's not a paycheck situation.
But if I were going to pick one person in Hollywood, I could blackmail.
Just saying.
All right.
Let's see.
So Biden's new ad is that a bunch of extremists in the country.
But by the extremists he means MAGA people.
So Joe Biden is basically saying half of the country are insurrectionist assholes, and that's how he's running.
He's running by saying half of the country are assholes, basically.
Now, I keep pointing this out, but the more obvious it gets, like, everybody's going to see it.
When Republicans talk about politics, usually they're talking about policy.
Usually.
There could be exceptions.
When Democrats talk about politics, they're talking about people.
So the Republicans will say, hey, your border asylum policy is a bad policy.
They'll say, oh, your abortion laws, we think they should change.
But when Biden talks about politics, he says, all of you Republicans are like mega extremists.
Not all of them, but that's sort of implied.
Now you see it, right?
Democrats talk about people and Republicans talk about policies.
If that was the only thing you knew, it would be a no-brainer who you vote for.
Why would you vote for the one who's just bitching about people instead of the one who has an idea how to change a policy?
I mean, you see Vivek talk and he says, yeah, I'm going to cut the FBI by 80%.
I'm going to get rid of the Department of Education.
I'm going to do I'm going to pardon the January 6th people.
I'm going to start drilling.
It's just policy, policy, policy.
And then when a Democrat asks him a question, she asks him about if he'll deny white supremacy, which is really a clever way to blame Republicans for being white supremacists.
That's all they got.
Now, why do you think it is that Democrats talk about people And Republicans talk about policy.
It's obvious.
Only one of them has good policies.
That's it.
Now, what is the exception?
There's one real big exception.
Abortion.
Why do Democrats talk about policy when they talk about abortion?
They're really about policy when they talk about that.
You know why?
Because in their opinion, they have a good argument.
Right?
Republicans would say no, but in their opinion, they have a good argument.
So why does Biden have to go after MAGA people instead of talking about policies?
Because he doesn't have any good policies.
Abortion is one he can talk about, but you know, it's not really the president's job.
It's not even part of the job that's now moved to the states.
So look for that pattern.
Look for the pattern of Democrats demonizing Republicans and Republicans trying desperately to talk about, hey, can we change this border policy?
Can we change this tax thing?
Can we get rid of this war?
Very much policy versus people.
Speaking of that, Ibram Kendi, famous anti-racist racist, he asked this about the The resignation of Harvard's president.
He says, the question is whether all these people would have investigated, surveilled, harassed, and written about and attacked her in the same way if the Harvard president, in this case, would have been white.
Do you think the attacking from the right would have been quite as bad if she'd been white?
What do you think?
No, I agree with him.
It wouldn't have been nearly as bad if she had been white.
Do you know why?
Because she was attacked for two reasons.
One was being a diversity hire, and the other was for plagiarism and saying the wrong stuff about Israel and Hamas.
Yes, there was much more energy to get her fired because she's a black and a woman who wasn't capable.
Like, if you don't add the, and she didn't seem qualified, then it's a different thing, right?
But I completely agree that a lot of the energy and the heat was very much because she was black and female.
But that's the problem.
The problem is that she was black and female and got promoted, apparently, over a lot of more qualified people.
So yes, because she's black and female, there was more energy to get rid of her, because she got there the wrong way.
He's half right.
All right, people who were speaking on about DEI just today.
Bill Ackman, Konstantin Kissin, Michael Schirmer, The Wall Street Journal, you have me, Musk.
So we're definitely at some kind of a major turning point where people can just say directly this DEI stuff is poison, got to get rid of it.
Let me ask you this.
Have you ever heard of a story where DEI was cut in a company and then the company regretted it and they had to reverse their decision and add back that DEI staff?
Do you think you'll ever hear of it?
I have a prediction that there might be a company that cuts their DEI and then has to add it back.
But it would be because of complaints.
It wouldn't be because they lost money.
I don't think it's a two-way street.
I think that when they start cutting the DEI, they're not going to add it back.
I mean, I feel like the cutting is the future.
So read the room.
There's more stories about DEI being bad and zero companies saying it's working.
At least in terms of profitability.
All right, so how many of you know that President Trump released a gigantic statement with lots of details about the election fraud he claims in the 2020 election?
It's really long.
I thought about how could I talk about it, but it's way too long, so I'll give you the gist of it.
So he goes through the battleground states, and he lists in quite a bit of detail the claims of irregularities and or fraud.
And for each of the states that are the battlegrounds, I think he covered them all, there are tremendous claims.
Now I'm going to say allegations, because I cannot determine what is true and what is not.
But, boy is it effective.
Boy, is it effective.
Here's why.
Number one, the documentary effect.
His claims are so extensive that you end up spending a lot of time going through them, like I did this morning.
If you spend a lot of time looking through the details of one narrative, the narrative being the election was rigged, You are going to be convinced of whatever that the documentary maker wants you to think.
So it is the nature of a documentary, if it takes one position, and usually they do, that they don't show you the other arguments.
And at the end of the documentary, you're going to be 100% convinced that whatever that documentary said is true.
But five minutes later, if you saw a documentary that took the other position, you'd be just as convinced of the opposite.
Because that's how documentaries work.
If you could make somebody sit for an hour, an hour, you know, to look at one point of view, they usually do walk away believing it.
It's just too much of one point of view.
It overwhelms your critical thinking.
You just say, all right, all right, there's so much here, it must be true.
Doesn't mean it's true.
Just means there's a lot of it.
Now, closely related to the documentary effect, which is a name I came up with, is the laundry list persuasion.
Laundry list persuasion says, oh, I've got 15 things that Trump did wrong.
And you say to yourself, well, a quick perusal of your list, you know, I could pick out three right away that are definitely not true.
But I don't really have time to look into the whole list.
So I end up walking away and saying to myself, well, I'm sure they're not all true on that list, but the list is so long.
There's probably something on there that's true.
So a laundry list is persuasive for the wrong reason.
It's not persuasive because the stuff on it is persuasive.
It's persuasive because it's long.
And you say to yourself, irrationally, but you say to yourself, well with this much smoke, There must be at least one thing that's true on this big ol' list.
So Trump is using both the documentary effect, because it takes so long to work with it, plus the laundry list effect, because there's so many different claims.
Now you put those together, and the effect that I had when I looked through it was, I concluded that there's a 100% chance the election was rigged.
Is that true?
I don't know.
I actually don't know.
And I'm sufficiently self-aware that I know I was brainwashed by looking at the material.
Brainwashed.
Do you think that I could tell even one of those claims whether it was credible or not true?
I couldn't.
Not one of them.
There were tons and tons of claims, and honestly, they all looked pretty good.
But I don't know.
Do you know?
Who knows?
How would you know?
Now, I'm more and more convinced, especially when I see Trump's list of claims, I'm more and more convinced that what happened to Sidney Powell, with the whole Kraken business and the Venezuelan general who allegedly knew some things, I'm convinced that was an op.
And that the purpose of it was to give her the most ridiculous claim, and then if she went public with it, it would undermine all of her other allegations.
Which is exactly what happened.
If you mention Cindy Powell, somebody will say Kraken within five seconds.
It's the first thing you think of.
So it obliterated her credibility, and we never heard where she got that from, did we?
Isn't that the weirdest thing?
Dog not barking.
Don't you think at some point, Sidney Powell should have said, okay, I was wrong, but this is where I got it from.
Where's that?
Why doesn't she say where she got it from?
Yeah.
I think the reason is she may know that somebody set her up.
I think she knows she got set up.
And she may have a reason not to, you know, want to out him, but she probably thinks she was set up at this point.
And it looks to me like if the stuff on Trump's list of irregularities, if any of that is true, it would suggest that they had to do an op to remove from credibility anybody who was looking into it with any capability.
And it looks like that's what happened.
Now, I can't say for sure, But if you told me, what's it look like?
It looks like the election was rigged.
It looks like Sidney Powell was getting too close to the truth, and they fed her a Kraken op, and she bit, and then it took her out of the, took her out of contention.
And then nobody else wanted to follow that path, because she got so completely destroyed, her career was destroyed, that nobody wanted to, like, go down that path.
So they basically poisoned the entire field, And it worked.
That's what it looks like to me.
Now, let me say again, since I cannot confirm or debunk any of Trump's claims, I'll just say it's a really long, convincing-looking list.
I just don't know if it's true.
But, here's my take on the election rigging.
I don't know if it happened, I have no proof.
But, We do observe that every other institution and entity, government and private, in the United States is clearly corrupt.
Clearly corrupt.
Why would all 50 state elections be the only things that work right?
Really, the only things?
That is so not believable.
It's completely unbelievable that everything was corrupt except the elections.
That's not believable.
Not even a little bit.
But, I'll say again, I don't have any proof.
Now, but I'll tell you what I do have proof of.
Here's what I'm going to move from, I suspected it, to now I'm positive.
This election was never audited.
Can we all say that for sure?
Not only was it never audited, because all of this stuff came up afterwards, not only was it never audited, Trump's list of irregularities proves to me beyond any doubt, I now have no doubt, that our elections are designed, not accidental, designed to not be auditable.
Fully.
Clearly there's some things you can check.
But not enough, because if any of these claims are true, these were all things that no audit caught until well after it was too late to do anything about it.
So that's fun.
All right.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is all I have for today's amazing live stream.
The best thing you've ever seen.
The best thing you ever will see.
Thanks for joining on YouTube.
I always appreciate you, and I will see you in the morning tomorrow.
