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:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 I'm pretty sure you've never had a better time.
This is going to be an amazing morning for you, full of intrigue, interest, special interest, human interest, every kind of interest.
If you'd like to take this up to a level that Well, humans can barely even understand.
All you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or gels to stay in a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Very good.
Very good.
Top 10.
One of the best sips ever.
Hey, let's talk about the news.
I don't know why this is news, but Fox News has reportedly pilled... Pilled?
Pulled.
Pulled, not pilled.
They pulled the pillow.
Advertisements for MyPillow and Mike Lindell.
Now, there were no reason given, but there's a coincidence involved that apparently Mike Lindell has his own network.
Is that true?
Mike Lindell started his own network for news.
And apparently Mike Lindell hired an ex Fox News guy, Mike, what's his name?
Why am I forgetting his name?
The one that used to work in Lou Dobbs.
Yeah, so he, so Mike Lindell hires Lou Dobbs, who used to work for Fox News.
I think they had similar opinions about the accuracy of the last election.
And Fox News pulled the advertisements.
In other words, Fox News was no longer willing to take money from Mike Lindell.
That's pretty radical, isn't it?
That you're no longer willing to take money from one of your biggest advertisers?
Interesting.
But they got plenty of TikTok money, because TikTok's an advertisement.
No problem.
What could possibly be the problem here?
Yeah, no problem.
So that's probably exactly what it looks like.
Fox News would be a competitor, I guess, with Mike Lindell, so they just wanted to cut connections.
That's not actually too surprising.
Once he becomes their competitor, you can't expect them to play along.
All right.
NBC has a news story today about what science has discovered about a giant 10-foot ape that lived 200,000 years ago.
In China, they found some bones, I guess.
But they figured out what killed the 10-foot huge apes.
Can you guess?
Do you want to take a guess?
Climate change.
That's right.
Yeah.
According to NBC News, Our science is now so good that we can tell what a monkey was thinking 200,000 years ago.
They actually make that claim.
They say that the climate made it difficult for them to get their normal food source, and unlike the other apes, okay, it's an ape, not a monkey, but unlike the other apes who adjusted and, you know, just found other food sources, these big ol' apes, they were too dumb.
And they decided not to diversify their food sources, so they died.
So climate change killed the big apes.
Now, remember I told you that you can't understand any of the news unless you know the players.
Now, allegedly, I don't have confirmation of this myself, but people who seem to know more than I do claim that NBC is a big old CIA propaganda operation.
Is it?
How would I know?
I wouldn't know.
But I'll tell you what, if they were, they would act exactly like this.
What do you think it does to you when you hear that something that's a little bit like you, you know, an upright walking probably 10-foot ape, don't you say to yourself, If climate change killed that big ape, aren't we in danger?
Yes.
Now, obviously there's not a direct connection between the 200,000-year-old apes and humans, but your brain doesn't know that.
Your brain will say, uh-oh, it killed a big ape just like me.
It must be ready to kill me too.
So this is the kind of story that you would only expect From somebody who's tried to brainwash you.
Now, how many of you think the science actually knows why these apes died 200,000 years ago?
Do you think you really know that?
Do you think the science can figure out what the apes were thinking and why they died 200,000 years ago?
The absurdity that they would want us to believe that that's something they can do or they can know?
Very funny, actually.
You're saying to yourself, Scott, can you move that microphone?
This is putting an annoying shadow on your chin.
How many of you were thinking that just now?
Now you were thinking that.
Now it's all better.
You're welcome.
All right.
Well, uh, uh, are all of you, uh, as puzzled as I am, why the following story is not being carried by all the major news organizations.
Is there something I missed or do I have a, I think that Representative Tim Burchett and a couple other people in Congress had access to a skiff, the top secret, most secretive place you could ever go to look at materials that are so secretive you can't even make a copy.
So you have to go see the originals in a special little secure building because that's our top top top secret.
Nothing is more secret than stuff that's in a skiff.
So of course the representatives can't tell us what they saw because they get to see it but it's top secret.
So what did Tim Bruchette say after you saw this stuff?
He said that It was obvious to the people who were with him, and to him, that David Grush, the whistleblower about the UFOs, is legit.
Now, David Grush says that the U.S.
has in his possession numerous downed UFOs, and also what he calls biologics, in other words, parts of the aliens themselves.
We've got it in big warehouses.
It's well known.
It's been going on for years.
And according to Tim Burchett and the top secret information, which he can't be more specific about, he can tell us that everybody who was in the skiff believes that the whistleblower is legit and that Earth is being visited by some kind of advanced intelligence, either from outer space or from the inner core or possibly the ocean.
Or possibly North Korea, because we don't know what's going on up there.
Well, what do you think about that?
There was another representative who, I didn't get his name, but he had a great answer for why Congress can't get better answers from the government about the UFOs.
Or UAPs, as they like to call them.
And what he said was, you can ask these guys questions, but everybody is only allowed To answer in their little domain.
So it's actually possible.
This is hilarious to me as the author of Dilbert.
It's possible that the government is so incompetent that every part of the government only knows one thing.
And that the government collectively doesn't know if the aliens are real or if they have them.
That's right.
I actually believe that the government as an entity doesn't know If it has in its possession aliens.
Now, I know that sounds ridiculous.
Now, what I mean is, if we had any aliens, which I'm super skeptical of, I don't think we have any aliens or any spaceships.
And I'm going to say that forever.
I'd have to touch it myself to believe there's an alien spaceship.
No, I don't think there are any aliens.
But, I think it's fascinating That the information in the government is so compartmentalized, and of course every government employee knows I can only talk about the thing I know, or I'll get fired if I talk about anything else.
It may be that you can't ask enough questions to find out what's going on.
Because there's nobody who could tell you not only what they do, but how it connects to other people.
And without that, you wouldn't know what's going on.
So, and the, I forget which politician was yesterday, said, if you don't know to ask the exact question, They're not going to help you, because they're only going to answer the exact question.
So if you said to them, the whistleblower says you have, I'll just make this up, but the whistleblower says you have 10 alien UFOs.
Is that true?
No, it's not true.
What did you learn?
You didn't learn whether or not there's aliens, because you didn't ask the question right.
You should have asked, are there any?
Do we have any?
So I'm just making up that example.
But the point is, it might be that the government is so ineffective and distributed and bureaucratic that almost nobody in the government can even answer the question, do we have any aliens?
So presumably there would be a very small number of people who would do the real answer if we had real aliens.
But I don't think we have real aliens.
Do you know what I think?
I think it's a CIAR.
I think the op is being played on these members of Congress.
I think Tim Burchett is being played.
I think that they've identified him as a gullible.
I hate to say it, because I kind of like him.
You know, when I see him on TV, I see him a lot.
I say to myself, oh, I'd like that guy.
Like he'd be somebody you'd hang out with and have a beer.
He just looks like a real nice guy.
And he looks like he's actually trying to do the right thing.
You know, he gives off the vibe of an actual citizen who got elected who wants to help.
And I think that they're using it.
I think their sincerity is what makes them a little bit vulnerable.
Now, I'm just speculating.
I don't have any... I have no information, you know, to directly say that.
But I'm pretty sure we don't have any aliens.
So, if there was anything in a skiff that suggested we absolutely have some aliens, That had to be our intelligence people distracting us.
Right?
Because, well, this was happening.
And now here's the other thing.
I saw a video clip about this topic yesterday, and I said to myself, oh, I better catch up on this story.
Must be a big story in the press.
Because if members of Congress are talking about it, and they have this experience, and they have this revelation that these aliens are real, That's like the biggest story, isn't it?
Did you see that story anywhere in the press?
Did you see it written anywhere?
I did a Google search and there were a bunch of videos that probably all pointed to the same video.
Why would there be like a YouTube video or two, but nobody wrote a story?
Members of our government just confirmed That our government has alien spaceships and bodies.
Now, confirmed, I don't mean it's true, because I'm sure it's not true, but they thought so.
There are members of our government who saw secret information from our government and then told the public, yeah, it's true.
And it's not on CNN.
There's no written article about it.
What does that tell you?
What does that tell you?
I mean, to me, it tells me that the press knows it's not true.
What else could you conclude?
It would be the biggest story, not just of the week, of the year, of the decade, of the century, of the entire history of humanity.
It would be the biggest story of all.
There would be no bigger story.
Right?
And it disappeared.
The biggest story in the history of humankind, if it were true.
But CNN decided that wasn't newsworthy.
Here's what I think.
I think at the top of the news pile, they know it's not true.
And so they don't want to be the embarrassed ones who write about it.
Maybe everybody's hoping somebody else will cover it.
Like, well, I hope you guys cover it, This one doesn't seem too true to us.
I mean, just think about the fact that Tim Burchette is a Republican, and I'm pretty sure that Fox News didn't cover the story.
Did they?
Did Fox News cover it in, let's say, red form?
They may have had a video like others did.
It's weird that it exists only in video, because they're making it disappear pretty well.
Anyway.
So it might be some kind of a Dilberty situation Cover up that's accidental or intentional.
Who knows?
Trump lost a lawsuit.
I guess he was pressing a lawsuit against the New York Times over reporting about his financials.
And he lost.
So he's going to pay the legal fees.
$400,000.
So does that tell you that Trump lost?
Because he has to pay $400,000.
Depends what you call a wedding.
If I were these reporters, I would say to myself, I sure hated my last year.
I just spent a year defending myself in court and buying lawyers and borrowing money and shit.
And yeah, that's great.
That's great that I'll get reimbursed.
But I just lost a year of my life.
Do you think Trump is happy with the outcome?
$400,000 to send a warning signal to anyone else who would use what I'm guessing was maybe not the most confirmed Or information, or maybe they didn't put it in quite the right context that showed both sides.
I don't know what the claim is exactly.
But don't you think it sends a chilling message to other reporters?
That if you're going to write about Trump, maybe you better stick to the facts that you're really sure about.
Don't you think?
So I would call it a success.
For $400,000 at his level of wealth, To send this warning shot across the bow of reporters who might be looking at more, let's say, speculative stories about him, it's a brushback pitch.
I think he got his money's worth.
If that's the end of the story, it just cost him $400,000, he got his money's worth.
Yeah.
So I guess on Monday, Iowa, Goes to vote in the primary for the Republicans.
And the big stories about that are, number one, the weather.
So apparently the snow is just insane.
So the ability of old people especially to even get to the polling places or the caucus places, I guess, would be very limited.
Now, what does this tell you?
I'll tell you the message I'm getting from this.
Every time you think you're in a system where the system is, you know, working to express the will of the people so that the people can see, for example, that their vote counted and they pick the people that they want.
I feel like there's always, it's like Charlie Brown's football.
There's always something that's like pulling the football back just before you kick it.
And I feel like the Idaho results are going to be based on the weather.
Does it feel like that to you?
Basically, just think about this.
Vivek just absolutely blanketed that state like nobody's ever done before.
Not only did he cover more of the precincts, he covered every one, which is called the full Grassley.
He did a double Grassley.
And then it kept going.
He did a double Grassley.
He visited every precinct that I know.
Twice!
Twice!
Never been done before.
Just absolutely, just absolutely was just all over the state.
And then it snows.
It could be, it could be that none of his work will make any difference.
Just because it snowed.
Like that's our system.
That's how we pick a president.
By the snow, basically.
So, I don't know if the snow suppresses Democrats the same amount as it suppresses Republicans, but don't Republicans skew older?
I think they do, don't they?
Republicans tend to be a little older.
And if I saw a snowstorm, I'd say fewer older people are going to go outside on the ice and in the snow.
So good luck with that.
Now, Vivek is confidently predicting a surprise.
Now, I don't know what a surprise looks like, first place or strong showing.
I don't know what that would be.
But he might be right.
And this would be a good test of the polling.
I think there's a good chance that the people that Vivek is attracting to show up are exactly... See if you think this is true.
The people he's attracting are very much exactly the people who don't show up in polling.
Am I right?
Because the pollsters, you know, they got a problem because they got landlines that they're polling and then they do online polls, but young people don't bother to even read them.
And, you know, a general poll of people who don't care about politics is completely different than the poll of people who might actually show up on a primary or a caucus, right?
I mean, those are pretty dedicated people.
So, is it possible that Vivek is reading the room correctly?
Because he did have big crowds.
He had big crowds.
If the size of the crowds was the predictor, and you didn't believe that the polls could, you know, dig down deep enough to find his supporters specifically, you might have a surprise.
He might actually pull this off.
You know what's a fun party game?
I was playing this yesterday.
Some of you heard me.
Is to imagine the founders of our country, America.
You know, the famous ones, you're Ben Franklin's and you're George Washington's and Jefferson's and Hamilton and whatnot.
And then map yourself into one of the founders.
Just ask yourself, all right, which one would I be?
Which one's closer?
And then fill out the other ones.
All right, so you get one free pass to be a founder yourself.
I chose John Adams.
So, you know, might as well pick my cousin.
Because I felt a little like John Adams in this current situation.
Because we feel like we're in a new American revolution, especially with Vivek, but also with Trump.
And that in order for many of us to get the president we want, We have to know or understand, is there some big uni-party power behind politics that we don't see directly?
Like, you need to know that, right?
But doesn't it feel as though both Vivek and Trump are a new American revolution against these hidden powers that maybe we don't even know who they are?
I don't know if that even exists.
I don't even know if it exists.
I know there are a lot of people who are pretty sure it does, but I don't hear Names and, you know, I don't see facts, but it feels exactly like that, doesn't it?
And we'll talk about that a little bit more, but it does feel by coincidence that we have something like the founders have lined up.
Vivek maps into Thomas Jefferson really easily because they're both bigger than big and smarter than smart and more patriotic than patriots.
Like that's Thomas Jefferson.
Yeah, there were a lot of smart people, but Jefferson was smarter than the smart ones.
That's Vivek.
He's not just smart, he's smarter than the smart people.
And Jefferson did the Louisiana Purchase, the American Revolution, and that's about the size of the change that Vivek is saying he'll do.
75% cut in the government.
Get us out of wars.
Basically huge changes.
So that's very Jeffersonian.
And then it does seem like maybe Trump feels a lot like George Washington.
Doesn't it?
Because Trump seems like the one who's going into battle.
He's actually fighting, he's literally fighting the lawfare, the canons of the system.
So George Washington is, you know, he's marshalling the army, you know, the MAGA army or whatever it is against the Tories or whoever it is we're fighting.
And then it seems very much Like Elon Musk is the modern version of Ben Franklin.
Now, does he fit the model of a revolutionary?
Well, let's ask the Wall Street Journal.
Because the Wall Street Journal just wrote the most bullshit, stupid fucking article you'll ever see, that decides that really, whenever you think of Elon Musk, you should think of Donald Trump, because they're the same person.
You fucking assholes.
You goddamn pieces of shit in the Wall Street Journal.
What are you doing with this article?
What are you educating us on?
What news is this?
This is pure fucking propaganda.
This is disgusting.
You should really be ashamed of yourself, Wall Street Journal.
This is not up to your standard.
I usually have a lot of respect for the Wall Street Journal, but this is not up to your standard.
This to me looks like a pure hippies that they're trying to disguise as some kind of opinion journalism important story.
It's not important.
It's not journalism.
It's not fucking news.
It's a hippies on one of the most useful Americans in the history of the fucking Republic.
Why?
Because Elon Musk runs a platform that doesn't always hate Donald Trump.
That's That's why it exists, or at least that's why it got published.
I can't read the mind of the writer, but I can tell you it doesn't have news value.
So you do the math, right?
Amazing.
Amazing.
And how do they say he's the same?
Because they both use Twitter really well.
That was one of the biggest evidences that there are populists who use Twitter really well.
How exactly Do you write a hit piece about a populist?
Doesn't that sound almost like that's backwards?
What the hell is a populist except somebody that the people really like once they get to know?
And they really agree with them once they get to know.
That's what a populist is.
Somebody who's popular because they're doing the right things according to the public.
So they've got to make populism look bad, because Trump doesn't.
Trump's the best populist ever, I don't know, maybe of all time.
But Elon Musk is definitely a populist as well, in the sense that he's trying to do things that make sense and are popular.
I don't think he does it because they're popular, that's obvious.
But he does seem to be very dedicated to what would be good and make sense.
Such as population increase instead of decrease.
So, got that going on.
How many of you saw the AI created George Carlin stand-up comedy?
How many of you saw or listened to that clip?
Anybody see that?
So, the story was that AI had finally done what I said couldn't be done.
Which is write humor that was high quality humor and in fact as good as the real George Carlin.
So there was a video that was going around and people were impressed because the writing seemed to be almost human-like quality.
And I think I tweeted it before I listened to it.
I listened to one joke or something.
And I thought the joke was lame, so I thought, well, it's wordplay, so probably AI did write it.
So I spent the time to listen to more of it.
And about five minutes in, it was super obvious that AI did not make that.
AI didn't make that.
I mean, you thought that AI really made it.
That was your AI hoax of the week.
So it was confirmed, by the way, that it wasn't real.
It wasn't AI.
Here's, I'm going to give you, well, I guess I'm giving myself a pat on the back.
It took me just a few minutes of listening to it to know it couldn't be AI.
Because AI can't do that.
AI can't do that.
So I was pretty sure that AI can't do that.
And sure enough, it didn't.
It can't even come close.
So here's what it did that was my tip off.
Part of the comedy was that George Carlin was insulting God for creating us and then creating all these diseases to kill us.
Now, on one hand, that sounds, oh, that's very George Carlin-ish.
It's right in his sweet spot.
On the other hand, there is no AI that will ever insult God.
AI is not going to insult God, and it's certainly not going to mock people who have diseases.
It's not going to do that.
As soon as I heard the God part, I was like, come on.
There's no way this is AI.
But then the story was, OK, it was written.
It was written by a human.
And we know the name of the human.
They admit it.
I think at the end of the video, it actually says it actually.
Somebody said at the end of the video, which I didn't get to, it reveals that it's not real.
But the claim is that the impersonation of George Carlin Was AI.
Even the impersonation didn't sound like him.
There wasn't one thing that sounded like George Carlin.
Didn't sound like his voice.
The writing actually was pretty close, but it sounded like a, it sounded like a human imitating George Carlin.
And I picked it out immediately.
Now, uh, the only reason I watched it, let me give a little credit here, is that, uh, Greg Guffield had watched it.
And he sent me a message and said, I probably shouldn't tell you what private messages people send, but he wouldn't mind, I don't think.
He said, this doesn't look real, does it?
So Greg, who writes jokes for a living and understands writing, of course, bestselling author, it took him two minutes to say, this can't be real.
And then I looked at it and was like, this can't be real.
So anybody who's a professional, professional writer and professional humorist, especially, you see it right away.
This did not fool anybody who is in the business.
All right, there's no labels.
It's a third party group and they've got a big pack and they're going to be raising money to run some third party person in 2024 who is not yet selected.
Now, what have I told you?
About how to understand news and stories.
What I always tell you is, if the only thing you know is the story, you don't know anything.
You have to know the players in the story, and how they're connected, and then you understand the story.
So if the only thing I told you is there's this third party group, and they're raising money for a third party, what does that tell you?
Not really anything.
Actually nothing.
Because you don't know who they're going to run, you don't know who they are, you don't know if it's legitimate.
You don't really know anything.
But now I'm going to tell you the people involved.
And watch all the gears go click, click, click, click, click, and form an entire picture for you.
I don't even need to connect the dots.
I will, but I don't need to.
Listen to this.
Let's see, the person in charge of the group will be led by Kathleen Shanahan, who previously served as Chief of Staff to former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, Republican, and worked as an aide to former President George Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney.
Any questions?
Are there any further questions?
Yeah.
This is your confirmation that we don't live in a republic.
This is your Uniparty confirmation.
The Republicans are trying to take Trump out.
As much as the Democrats.
There's only one way that that makes sense.
That we don't have a real government.
There is no other explanation for this.
Now if they tell you, oh, it's because we really think this third party is viable, you know that's not true, right?
You know they're not trying to actually elect anybody.
Nobody thinks a third party could get elected.
The only reason for a third party is if you're true believers.
Do you think that this ex-chief of staff for these three major Republican establishment people Do you think she's working out of a true belief about helping the Republic?
I don't think so.
I doubt it.
It just looks like she's working for the establishment Republicans.
So why would the establishment Republicans want to run a third party?
Do you think they're doing it to help Trump?
Do you think that the Chief of Staff previously of both Jeb and George and Dick Cheney, do you think that person has decided to help Trump?
No. No.
No.
So remember Vivek's warning that the real play is to bump Trump out one way or another, whatever it takes, Put Haley in because she is the Uniparty candidate that will spend her money on wars.
Now, that sounds pretty conspiratorial crazy, doesn't it?
Honestly, it sounds a little crazy.
Except every piece of evidence that we can confirm seems to be very compatible with that point of view.
Now, I'm open to the argument that there's something in our reality They would tell me that's unlikely, or that Vivek's prediction that the election will be rigged by, not just the vote necessarily, but rigged by who's allowed to run in the end, the final two.
It does look like that.
It looks exactly like that.
So I'm not saying that I'm totally endorsing the prediction that'll happen, but Vivek Has a hypothesis which fits the facts.
If he's right about this... Well, he probably is.
All right.
Yeah, that's pretty much confirmed that we are not... Whatever you thought about living in a republic, I think you can throw that shit away.
I don't know what's going on exactly, but...
This is pretty much proof we're not living in any kind of election, you know, republic, democrat process.
Something else is happening.
All right.
Now, what else?
Biden administration is looking to reclassify marijuana as a level three drug because it's not as dangerous as the level ones according to initial research.
Now, this is why I've been promoting that we should have more trans people in government.
I mean, I say it all the time.
You know what we need in government?
There's a lot more trans people, and here's why.
Here's a perfect example.
Rachel Levine, Health and Human Services Assistant Secretary for Health, she wrote a letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration in which she's basically advocating for making marijuana Schedule 3.
So that is good work, Rachel Levine, and all of you haters with your anti-trans stuff.
Well, the joke's on you, because Rachel Levine's doing some good work here, according to me.
You don't have to agree with that, by the way.
Now, can we do some NPC stuff?
I like to do the show for NPCs as well as the rest of you, who are actually real people.
Because I have NPCs who watch as well, and I like to service everybody.
Now, if you're an NPC, the way to look at the question of marijuana, either legalization or change in the scheduling, is this.
Assume that everybody who smokes marijuana is injured, or, or, nobody who ever smoked marijuana had a bad experience.
And also, you must believe that marijuana is either completely good for you all the time, or completely bad for everybody all the time.
And then make your argument based on that.
Now, the people who are real people, not NPCs, you are still allowed to look at the pluses and the minuses of all issues.
So you can say, for example, huh, it appears that Scott is getting more benefit than cost out of it, because he uses it medicinally.
And reports many, many benefits, and his life appears no worse for it.
But, you could also say, equally true, I know this teenager who is ruining their life because the marijuana is sucking all the joy out of them and turning them into porn addicts.
Also true.
Also true.
And it's a tough question in a free society, whether I get the freedom To use it in a way that, as far as I can tell, is all entirely productive and makes me happy and I couldn't be happier.
At the same time, I do know it's going to kill that teenager.
I do know that.
Right?
And I don't want that.
So what do you do?
Well, that's why we have governments.
But Rachel Levine, good job on that.
Let's talk about the dumbest story in the news, California reparations.
Believe it or not, this is still a story.
You remember the background that Governor Newsom authorized a commission to go study the question of reparations for descendants of slaves.
And when the recommendation came back to give $1.2 million to every person who is eligible for reparations, Governor Newsom said, I'm not going to endorse that.
I don't hate it.
I don't hate it.
I don't criticize it.
But I'm not accepting it.
And what he said was, not that it was wrong or bad, instead he said, you know, it's about more than money.
Reparations is about more than money.
It's about, you know, fixing systemic racism in a variety of ways.
But the issue is still there, and I would like to point out the following.
As long as this issue still exists, in other words, it's still an active question in California, he can never be elected president.
A Republican would bury him on this, even though he didn't accept it.
He would be forced to say, I do not accept reparations, even after I formed that commission.
Or he's going to say it's still on the table and I haven't decided.
Either one of those, he can't win.
He cannot win.
Because there are a lot of white people in a lot of states who say, what?
If he gets away with that in California, and he does it, My state is going to be talking about that tomorrow.
And I'm going to pay because a hair gel Hitler, you know, did this clever thing in California.
That is the most disqualifying issue of all issues I've ever seen.
I mean, he literally would be running for president on a platform that he won't guarantee taking money from white people to give it to people of other races.
Not just taxes, but just take their money because they're white, because they're white, and give it to black people because they're black.
How do you get elected with that?
It's impossible.
No, there isn't any way he can be elected to national office.
So all those of you who said, and by the way, I used to think this too, that he would have a serious shot at getting elected.
No, he can't.
As long as reparations are out there, he cannot get elected.
There's no way he's going to get enough white votes to make that happen.
Rumble is under attack.
Big surprise, because, you know, Rumble is a source of free speech, and so you have to know that the government will come after them.
Sure enough, there's this short seller.
This is a claim from the president of Rumble, that a short seller Put together a report of bullshit, sent it to the SEC, and the SEC said we're looking into it because somebody had reported there's some bullshit.
Then, the same person who reported it goes to the press and says, hey, don't look at me, but the SEC says this is serious.
And what a short seller is, is somebody who makes money if they can identify a company whose stock is going to drop like a rock.
So one of the dirty tricks they do is create the news That makes the stock drop so that they can make that, you know, quick cash.
Okay.
And so, so Rumble's story is that it's completely illegitimate, will be easily dismissed.
You know, the claims against them are something about, the claims have something to do with whether they properly accounted for something financial.
The response, again, not in a legal context, but just from the president, is that they always anticipated this kind of attack.
And so they had a bulletproof accounting exactly for this reason.
And all they have to do is show it and it'll go away.
But in the meantime, it's like swatting.
That's exactly right.
In the comments on local, somebody said it's like swatting a stock.
That's exactly right.
It's like swatting a company.
So is there anything to the claim?
Well, we don't know.
But we do know that the person making the claim, according to the president of Rumble, is a financially motivated person who would benefit whether it was true or not.
Right?
So the claim from Rumble is that the source of the accusation is somebody who would make a lot of money even if it's not true.
So you should judge its credibility at exactly zero.
Does that make sense?
From a risk management kind of understanding the world basis, it doesn't mean it's not true.
It doesn't mean it's not true.
But you should judge its credibility at actually zero.
Because there's somebody has a financial motivation, a gigantic one, and they're in the business of doing this very kind of thing.
So no, this is not a believable accusation.
But like I say, sometimes accusations are true.
Even if they don't seem credible when they're made.
So you can't rule anything out, but I wouldn't give any credibility at this at this stage.
And, oh, I guess I full disclosure.
I'm sorry, I should have disclosed this.
I am a stockholder in Rumble.
So I owned an initial investment, a very small one, in Locals, which got acquired by Rumble, which allowed my stock to roll over into Rumble.
So I'm a stockholder at a much higher price and the last I saw was in the threes.
I think it went public around twelve and now the short seller drove it down to about three.
So the short selling works.
I mean it's a dirty trick but it works.
So I'm holding my stock.
Considering doubling it, but that is not financial advice.
That would be pure gambling.
Let me say that again.
I'm considering doubling my holding, but it would be a super risky play.
I do not recommend you do that.
That is pure risk.
Just pure gambling, right?
But the play would be this.
And again, don't follow my advice.
Do not follow my financial advice on this or anything else unless I tell you to diversify your portfolio.
If I tell you to diversify, listen to that.
If I tell you to buy or sell a specific stock, do not listen to that or anybody else.
But I'll tell you the thinking.
Investing makes most sense when you think you have special insight that the market doesn't have.
You're usually wrong, which is why you shouldn't do this.
But here's my special insight.
It is more likely true that Rumble is being unfairly attacked than it is likely to be true that the accusations are true.
Now, I don't know what the odds are, but it's not 50-50.
It's definitely weighted heavily toward it not being true.
Now if it turns out that the SEC goes through it and it's not true, you'd expect maybe at least a 25% bump in the stock.
So that would be a reason that a rich person, only a rich person, don't do this if you're struggling, might gamble just because it's kind of a fun gamble.
But I do gamble that the news is wrong When I invest.
That's a common method I've used.
Don't use that method.
But it's just one that I use to some effect.
I wouldn't say it works all the time.
Well, Delta Airline is racist.
Robbie Starbuck reports on the X platform.
He showed a photo of a Delta Airlines training that says they instruct their employees to capitalize the words black and brown when talking about people.
But to lowercase white.
You okay with that?
You capitalize black and brown, but not white, even when used in the same context about talking about people.
No, that's completely racist.
And Delta, you are despicable.
Yeah.
If this is true, I mean, I saw a photograph of it, but, you know, anything could be fake.
If it's true, This is pure racism.
And by the way, that's the definition of racism.
Treating people differently in an official sense.
Individuals are different, but a company doing it would be racism.
Individuals can do whatever they want.
There's no law against that.
All right.
You all know probably the story, if you're following the news a lot, of an American independent reporter named Gonzalo Lira.
Who is reporting very inconvenient things from Ukraine.
And he was reporting things that the leadership of Ukraine would not want to see.
He was put in jail and reportedly he has died in prison.
And some say he died from poor medical care.
Some people say he was murdered.
David Sachs points out, and I agree, what's the difference?
They put him there to take care of him.
If he died because they gave him bad service or he died because they strangled him, they killed him.
So the Ukrainian government killed an American, but at least America tried really hard to get him out because he was unfairly accused, right?
Nope.
Nope.
It looks like America let him die because he was also saying things inconvenient to America.
He was, for example, and I don't know the truth of any of these accusations.
I'll just say he made these accusations.
That the war in Ukraine was largely Victoria Nuland, American Victoria Nuland, being a bully and having, you know, bad motivation.
I have no independent, you know, knowledge of what she did or didn't do, but that was his accusation.
And a lot of people said this, by the way.
Tucker Carlson often says Victoria Nuland is the center of The war machine that likes to profit from war.
The neocons.
The neocons, as they say.
Now, I don't know about any of that, but that's his accusation and a lot of other people's accusations.
But he went on.
I saw a video of Gonzalo before he died.
Because the videos of him after he died are less interesting, really.
But before he died, he had the following theory that for some reason, I didn't know.
Now, I don't know if it's true, but I certainly should have heard about it.
And here's what he said about Ukraine.
He said there's this billionaire who funded and he was sort of behind the production company that created a TV show about a Ukrainian guy who became president.
And he hired Zelensky, and Zelensky was the star of the show.
What was the name of the show?
Something of the People?
Servant of the People?
Was that the name of the TV show?
Give me a confirmation on that.
So, Servant of the People, right?
So the TV show was called Servant of the People, and Zelensky was the star.
And part of what Gonzalo Lira reports is that for reasons that are mysterious, It was a gigantic hit.
Now what makes that mysterious is it wasn't really that good a show.
But it had massive advertising, some kind of massive support.
So it looked like it was sort of artificially pushed to the top of the market by powerful forces.
Now here's the interesting part.
Then the same billionaire who funded the TV show Allegedly.
Again, none of this is from me.
This is from allegations.
Allegedly, he created a political party and he called it the same name as the TV show, Servant of the People.
And then they needed a candidate.
So he picked Zelensky, who had no political experience, but he had made him super popular as an actor pretending to be a president.
And then, you know, nobody believes that elections in Ukraine are True.
So then Zelensky becomes president.
Did the U.S.
help?
Probably.
Was that their intention?
Were they working with this billionaire?
Well, I don't know if they were colluding with him, but they might have had compatible interests at one point.
It's unclear.
But it gets better.
If you think that's the good part of the story, you haven't heard the good story.
Now again, these are only accusations.
The same billionaire Owned either a lot of, or most of, another company you might have heard of.
It's called Burisma.
That's right.
The same billionaire who owned Burisma that was paying Hunter Biden, and 10% of that, theoretically, was going to the boss, was putting Zelensky as a puppet in charge of the Ukrainian government, and maybe,
The entire operation was a coordinated effort to use Ukraine as a piggy bank, destroy the country, suck its resources out, launder money, and also maybe give Putin a hard time, which would be just a bonus.
Now, is any of that true?
I don't know.
All I know for sure is that the guy saying it just got killed by Ukraine and America didn't complain.
So the suggestion is everything seems to be compatible with it being true.
What would be incompatible with this being true?
Is there any counterfactual to it?
I mean, it's hard to prove a negative, of course, so it doesn't mean it's doesn't mean it's true just because you don't have an argument against it.
But it's feeling really true.
Yeah, I'm it's I'm very biased by the fact that everything that We've imagined as a conspiracy theory, ends up being pretty close to true.
So, probably.
I'll tell you what I believe to be true, based on not just this story, but the totality of information.
It does seem to me that Ukraine was always a piggy bank for the billionaires, and the political class.
It does seem that American politicians have been wetting their beaks in Ukraine, possibly for decades, and It's exactly what it looks like.
And that the war was optional.
And that killing people to make money is the business of America.
And killing our own citizens to make money is a critical part of that.
That's what it looks like.
It looks like the Bidens are deeply involved in that part of the world.
So I don't know what's true, but that's what it looks like.
And it looks like that American government and the Ukrainian government conspired to kill an American.
So let me say that directly.
I don't know that it's true, but the evidence strongly suggests that the Biden administration killed an American to keep him quiet.
Now, killed him by not freeing him, which could have been easily done.
Because obviously, American can get Zelensky to free anybody we want.
Would you agree?
If the president said to Zelensky, all right, here's the deal.
I don't care what he's charged with.
He's an American.
Let him go.
Zelensky would have Put the key in the door five minutes later.
Zelensky isn't going to ruin Ukraine over one reporter in jail.
Nobody would make that trade-off.
So you can know for sure that America wasn't interested in his life or wanted him to die in jail.
So I would say it's a case of murder.
The evidence suggests that the Biden administration, and Joe Biden specifically, because he would be the boss, the evidence suggests that Biden was part of a plot to murder American citizens.
Now, maybe murder by statistics?
Now, what I say by murder by statistics is you put him in a situation where he's probably going to die.
A Ukrainian prison.
Probably going to die.
Now you could say, well, that's not technically murder, because you didn't cause it.
You just put him in a situation where he's probably going to die.
No, I call that murder.
That's called murder.
Yeah.
We got Britney Grinds out.
We got Britney Grinder out of Russia.
You don't think we could get an American out of Ukraine?
All right.
Yeah.
So I would say that the official stories are ridiculous.
The accusations are wild, but they fit the facts.
That we know.
All right, so let me ask you this.
Do you see a lot of news today about the war in Ukraine?
Anybody?
Did you see that the news is just covered with... No, no.
There's a big old war over there and suddenly the news isn't interesting.
Huh.
Weird, isn't it?
It's like they're all coordinated or something.
Suddenly it just got uninteresting.
Yeah.
How about all the coverage on Gaza today?
Gaza?
It's just wall-to-wall... What?
Nothing?
Oh, nothing about Gaza?
The other war we're in?
How about the war in Yemen?
We know that we attacked Yemen.
And I guess it happened again, you know, two days in a row.
But massive coverage with lots of details, right?
Nope.
Nope.
Why would there be so little media coverage of the United States being in three different wars?
Well, it might have something to do with some comments that Donald Trump recently made on True Social that got promulgated on Axe.
And Trump said that Joe Biden got us into three different wars.
Ukraine, you know, Gaza situation, Yemen, And that he's the worst president in the history of the United States.
So Trump is pushing the idea that Joe Biden is a war starter.
And the news just went silent on three wars.
Right in front of you.
Right in front of you.
Right?
It's not like I'm coming up with some conspiracy theory.
You know there are three wars.
And you can look at the news.
And you can see that they're clearly intentionally underplaying them, because it would not work to their narrative.
Now, I like Trump's persuasion when he says that Biden is the worst president in the history of the United States.
What's he doing there?
What persuasion trick is that, that I've taught you many times?
He's making you think past the sale that he's a terrible president.
If you're thinking whether he's the worst, You've already accepted that he's in the bottom 10% or something.
And that would be enough.
Now, in my opinion, he actually is the worst president in the history of the United States.
I do think he has surpassed Jimmy Carter.
Would you agree?
Because Jimmy Carter, kind of classically, was considered the worst president.
But I think Biden has now surpassed him.
Now, to be fair, Biden has some successes.
He had some successes.
But probably Jimmy Carter did too.
So it's not about the fact he had some successes.
It's also about why he got wrong and starting three wars plus one on our southern border, which you're ignoring.
The only one that affects the homeland, the only one that affects the homeland, he's ignoring.
That is the worst president in the history of the United States.
If the only thing I told you was, He got us involved in three foreign wars and didn't protect us from the active invasion on their southern border.
Would you need to know anything about his economic policy to decide who is the worst president?
No, you would not.
Would you need to know his views on LGBTQ to know he's the worst president in the history of the United States?
No, you would not.
You wouldn't need to know that.
It wouldn't be relevant to the overall obvious characterization of his presidency.
Which is basically starting wars that probably didn't need to be started, getting us involved, using up our weapons, using up all our oil in our strategic reserves, giving away all our artillery shells.
It just goes on and on.
The worst president in the history of the republic.
I think that's just obvious now.
You know, no matter what you think of Trump, or anybody else, I think he's pretty clearly the worst.
And the fact that he's not even really conscious and able to even show up at events.
I mean, how did we allow that to be normalized?
You know, I always give this quote from my mother.
She always used to say, you can get used to anything if you do it long enough.
And that explains so much of the world, like why things are doing the thing, doing what they are.
Did I declare a race war?
There's an article, did Scott Adams declare a race war?
Typical election year kind of social media activity.
Anyway, that's where we're at.
Yesterday as a public service, and I know that sounds like a joke, but it actually was.
As a public service, I spent hours putting together a debunk of the drinking bleach hoax.
The reason I did it is because it just hadn't been done, and nobody in the news had ever done it, and it was one of the biggest stories of all time, and nobody had ever covered it.
Let me say that again.
One of the biggest stories of the Trump presidency, that he said, hey, you should drink bleach, which of course never happened, it was a hoax, and the major media Has never covered the story.
Just think about that.
Is that all you need to know about the Uniparty?
Do you ever remember Fox News doing the investigative report showing exactly what happened and how the hoax was created?
Nope.
Nobody else ever did it either.
So I did it.
So you can see it on Locals, but I linked to it on X. So look at my feed of the The Drinking Bleach Hoax.
Now I'll give you, I'll tell you what's there.
So you'll see the entire transcript, but I highlighted, so that you don't have to go through the whole thing, the parts where he mentioned light.
So when you see the whole thing, it's so super clear what happened.
And of course people are still denying it even after they read it.
Here's what you need to know.
When he, when he teased his guest and said, you know, I've got this guest You said there's like a really exciting, exciting news.
And then the guest came out and said, we tried various things to kill the virus on external surfaces.
We tried some bleach, we tried some isopropyl, but let me tell you, compared to those things, what really worked is light.
So light was really the topic.
Light was mentioned 21 times by either Trump or somebody else as the main topic of the event.
Were you aware of that?
How many of you knew that the main theme was about light as a disinfectant?
Did the news tell you that?
No.
No.
And what did the experts say about bleach and isopropyl and liquid disinfectants?
The only thing they said about them is that they don't work anywhere near as good as light.
Now, do you remember the part where Trump talked to Dr. Birx at the same event in public?
And he said, will the light work on porous surfaces, meaning skin?
And the doctor said, well, probably works better on non-porous surfaces.
But yes, you know, you would expect it will work a little bit, but maybe not as good.
So now we have clarification that when Trump said, Something really exciting is going to be revealed.
He did not mean bleach, and he did not mean isopropyl, because you know what?
Every person already knew that those things kill viruses.
Am I right?
Everybody already knew, the whole country, every citizen, every person, knew that disinfectants kill viruses on surfaces.
The only thing new that was presented was that light was a superstar.
The whole point of the thing.
Light is a superstar.
Did you know that?
The news didn't tell you that.
It was all about light as a superstar.
So the news didn't tell you that there was a trial of light and that the Wall Street Journal talked about it after that event, that there was a company, IU Bioscience, that said, yes, that's us.
We're putting light in a catheter, putting it down the throat, i.e.
injecting it into a body to see if it works.
Turns out it didn't work as well as they wanted, but it was being trialed at the time and Trump knew about it.
How do I know that Trump knew about it?
Because I was tweeting it two days before the event.
And other people were retweeting it.
And we know that his staff and he looked at that news.
And we also know that he's drawn to things that are good news.
He's especially drawn to hearing that there might be a solution.
There might be some good news.
So did his staff tell him about something that would be exciting and might be good news?
Probably.
Probably, they told him.
Because it's exactly what he wants to hear.
Tell me some good news about something that might be working so I can tell that story.
So that's why he was excited.
Now you want some more confirmation that he was only talking about light?
Because people still say he wasn't.
Here it is.
When the experts said we tried the bleach and the isopropyl, it did kill the virus, but it would take, you know, a while, several minutes.
But when we tried light, boom, two minutes gone.
So light was the two-minute one.
The other ones take much longer.
So when Trump was talking about disinfectant, he said, and look, and it could kill it in one minute.
And he repeated one minute more than once.
There was only one topic of one disinfectant that could work in, you know, the experts said two minutes and Trump did his usual Trumpian thing of making it one minute.
But there was only one thing that was ever discussed that could be that quick.
It was always light.
And if you look at all the references Trump made to light, he never once talked about anything that wasn't light.
Not once.
But he did, however, use the word disinfectant in the middle of a discussion about light.
So people, he put that one word out.
Now, how did the hoax get created when he very clearly was talking about only light?
Jim Acosta asks the question of one of the experts, and he says, Well, you wouldn't put these, you know, bleach and isopropyl and disinfectants into your body, would you?
Or I'm paraphrasing, something like that.
And the expert said, no, no, no, you wouldn't do that.
So Jim Acosta started the hoax by pretending he didn't understand that it was always about light.
That's how the hoax was created.
So once he pretended that he thought he heard that it was about these other things, Then the rest of the news just picked it up and it became a hoax.
So that's how it happened.
Now what you should learn from it is how hoaxes are created.
You know, we can't go back in time.
It doesn't really matter at this point.
But if you learn that they can so easily create a hoax, and here are the mechanics.
The first mechanic is you take something out of context.
So they had to cut off his many references to light, and they had to completely remove his conversation with Burks, same event, on the stage in public.
They had to remove the whole Burks conversation, because that would be so obvious that he was talking about skin the whole time.
I mean, really obvious.
So they had to just get rid of it.
So they get rid of it, and then if you want to see the transcript, they'll show you just the parts that are edited, and you think you actually saw the transcript, but you didn't.
Or they'll show you the entire transcript, which is 35 pages.
And it's just too much work to pick out what happened.
So I did that for you.
So I took the whole transcript, but you don't need to read it, because I've highlighted just the half dozen places that matter.
So you can just read those.
So for the first time in the history of America, somebody explained how the drinking bleach hoax started.
In great detail.
You can see it yourself.
There's no question about it.
But what you should learn is that they can do a selective edit.
That's how the Find People hoax started.
It's how the Covington Kids thing was pushed.
It's how the overfeeding the koi fish hoax was pushed.
Yeah, it's called a ROOPAR because it's a selective edit.
But then the second part of it is if somebody takes it out of context and then all the rest of the media Pretends that was a reasonable interpretation.
So it's the repetition over and over that turns it into the hoax.
It's not just the misinterpretation.
It's a repetition.
Yeah, wrap-up smear?
I don't know if that's a wrap-up smear, but it's in the same category.
All right.
So yeah, we don't know about Yemen.
It's all fog of war stuff.
So I don't have much to say about that.
Don't you think... Do you think we're being suckers?
Because it seemed pretty obvious that Yemen was begging us to attack.
If you attack somebody who very clearly wants you to attack, like Hamas in Gaza, are you really winning?
Makes you wonder what winning looks like, if you're killing people who wanted you to attack them and kill them, at least a little bit.
I don't know.
So I don't know if we're winning or not, but let me ask you a question that nobody's asked.
Since we know for sure that these are all Iranian proxies, so Hamas is Iranian proxy, Hezbollah is, the Houthis, Houthis in the blowship, and the attacks in Syria and Iraq and American forces, all Iranian.
Do the Iranians not have any ships?
What am I missing?
Not one Iranian ship have we blown out of the water?
Can you tell me that this would be hard to solve if Vivek or Trump were president?
Let me solve it for you.
Hey Iran, you use the Red Sea too.
If I see one more fucking missile come from your proxies in Yemen, we're going to take out your biggest tanker.
And if it happens again, we're going to take out your second biggest tanker.
Oh, but we will retaliate.
We will retaliate so hard.
Yup.
Did you hear the part about if you take out an Iranian tanker, we'll retaliate really hard?
Yup.
And then you're done.
Was that hard?
No.
Instead, we've got bedridden Lloyd Austins.
We're back!
I feel so confident.
Well, at least we don't have the dementia patient making the military decisions.
Instead, we have the guy in the hospital bed.
So, fear us!
Fear us!
Our hospitalized guy and our dementia guy are coming for you.
Don't worry about our lack of artillery.
At least we don't need any artillery in this case.
Or do we?
Maybe we will.
All right, so the Biden campaign has told CNN to tell the rest of you that what they expect is that the undecided voters have not been paying attention, and that as soon as they realize that the race will actually be Biden versus Trump, then all those undecided people are going to go, what?
What?
They'll line up for Biden and then Biden will win.
Do you see the play?
So there's a narrative forming for why everything's going to change at the last minute.
That's literally happening right in front of you.
What would you do if you were going to rig elections and you knew it?
You would start about now to tell a story about how all the people who haven't quite shown up in the polling Are going to show up and there's a good reason why it'll be toward the end.
Well, that's convenient.
But they're not wrong.
I don't think they're wrong.
Do you know how many people in the general public have heard of, just heard of, Vivek Ramaswamy?
Have you tried asking your normie friends what they think about Vivek?
What do they say?
Every person I've asked Who isn't, like, a real political person?
Every person who's just a normie, they say the same thing.
Who?
You know, Vivek Ramaswamy.
Running for president.
Republican.
He's all over social media.
And they say, yeah, it doesn't ring a bell.
What do you think causes that?
Well, some of it is the media coverage, but a lot of it is that the undecideds really are not paying attention.
The undecideds know they can just kind of wait to the end and make a decision in the week of election day if they want to.
There's no rule against that.
So you do have to remember how uninvolved the public is.
And I agree that if the anti-Trump people realize that he's the guy, they might form up on the other side.
That's possible.
It's a little bit more possible that Joe Biden's obvious decline We'll be so bad in less than a year that he will literally be a vegetable.
And he's still gonna win, probably.
All right.
A Biden spokesperson, Michael Tyler, who's the, let's see, he's a Biden communications director, Michael Tyler.
He said this, and I want you to see if this sounds like the scariest thing any American has ever said in any context.
That's a big claim, right?
The scariest thing that any American has ever said in any context.
I'm going to see if I can meet that.
Do you think I can meet that?
The scariest thing any human has said in any context.
Here it is.
Direct quote.
Talking about Biden, he says, quote, the President looks forward to spending the next 10 months reminding the American people how dangerous Donald Trump and his mega-agenda are for Americans' pocketbooks, their freedoms, and their democracy.
You know, I don't mind when our presidential candidates lie.
You know, gotta respect it.
I don't mind some exaggerations and hyperbole.
I don't even mind when they try to scare you, because usually they're scaring you about something real.
I didn't mind when Trump said you should be scared about the border.
I didn't think I should be that scared, but I thought that was just good politicking, because the border was a real problem, obviously, and it did bring in real crime, etc., along with good people.
But that was fair.
Because it was a dangerous situation.
Maybe he exaggerated it, some would say.
Maybe not, if you look at current events.
But fear does make sense when you're a leader and there's something you need to be afraid of so you can act on it.
I get that.
But you know what you don't need to be afraid of?
The MAGA Agenda.
The MAGA Agenda is literally about keeping you safer.
That's almost the entire thing.
How can I keep you Safer.
How can we avoid, you know, being a dictatorship?
How can we keep America some kind of republic if it ever was?
So the fact that the way Biden is forming this is in revolutionary civil war terms is actually the scariest thing I've ever heard an American say.
That is the scariest thing I've ever heard.
And it's scary because it's not true.
If it were true, It might also be scary, but it would at least be in the service of you know, some some benefit and I'd be like, okay But to actually say this when it's very obviously not true That democracy is at stake That's that's some dangerous dangerous stuff to put it to the American world All right.
Let me tell you my current thinking very biased by all this stuff.
I say My current thinking is it's very unlikely that America has been A real republic, probably for a long time, if ever, if ever.
To me, it seems sort of obvious that the pretend stuff we do, voting for things, is not how anything happens.
Now, I don't know who's in charge or if it changes or, you know, if it's some billionaires fighting it out and then we just find out who wins later.
I don't know exactly what's happening.
But I do know there's very little evidence that we live in a genuine republic.
Where the citizens become informed and then choose their leader.
I don't think that's happened, maybe for a long time.
And when you look at the lack of interest from both parties in fixing our election system, now there are members who do ask for it a lot, but as a group, neither the Republican Party nor the Democrats seem to show any real interest in fixing it.
Because each of them controls states, and one has to assume that they like controlling their state and winning in their state every time because they control the election.
So they don't want to give it up.
And maybe it would, you know.
So I think under that situation, the working assumption is that we don't live in a republic.
We live in a kleptocracy in which there's some group of billionaires who have Figured out how to game the system to make more billions of dollars.
That's what it seems like.
So I would say that I don't feel like I've ever been part of a republic.
That's my current opinion.
Now again, I can't say that that's truth.
I like to use the phrase a working assumption.
Because it fits the facts better.
If the facts were more compatible with us being a real, you know, democratically driven republic, then I would favor that.
You know, I would take that as my view.
But the facts really strongly argue against it.
You know, the entire situation with Trump, I don't think it could be much more clear than that.
Yeah.
All right.
So that, ladies and gentlemen, This is my amazing show for today.
Thanks for joining on YouTube and Rumble and X. You're all wonderful.
