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, Vince McMahon, Cannabis-Induced Psychosis, Deep Fake Biden Robocalls, Lia Thomas, Tucker Carlson Canada, Inflation Mystery, Peter Navarro Prison, Weaponized DOJ, WaPo, Free Speech Suppression, Jonathan Turley, Broken Mating System, Biologic Satisfaction, Female Mating Strategy, Sperm-Based Immigration Policy, Border Crisis, Mass Deportation, Bill Ackman, Utah DEI Bill, Border Bill Propaganda, Joe Scarborough, KanekoaTheGreat, Wrap-Up Smear, Hunting Republicans, Media Matters, Business Insider, Forbes, ICJ Israel Gaza Ruling, Houthis, Iran Terrorism Support, 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 I'm pretty sure nothing better has ever happened in the history of the universe.
If you'd like your experience to go up two levels, which nobody can even understand, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or gels, a stein, a canteen jug or a 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 of the day, the thing that makes everything better, including my audio.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Now, go.
Oh, we already have a complainer about the audio on the locals.
Now, you know the rule.
If you complain about the audio during the show, I turn it off.
Do you think you could hold it for a minute?
Because you don't have to be an asshole in the first five seconds.
Alright, I get it.
You cancelled your subscription.
Now you've said it.
Now shut the fuck up.
Okay?
Good.
Alright, we're all on the same page.
Alright, there's some interesting story about Vince McMahon.
Has anybody seen the Vince McMahon story?
I'm not even going to tell you what the claim is, but if you want to see something disgusting, I don't recommend you Google it.
I don't recommend it.
But if you can't stand it, and you've just got to find out what somebody is saying about Vince McMahon, I guarantee you none of it's true All right, so I'm not even gonna tell you what the claim is But there's a woman making a claim and let me just tell you this as a public figure.
I know what a stalker crazy woman claim looks like Because they have a certain quality about them and I've received many I tell you often about the the the woman in Canada who I've never met who claims that I I Go up to Canada and ransack her apartment and rape her on a regular basis.
And she calls all the people I've ever worked with to tell them I go to Canada to rape her.
That's a normal occurrence for a public figure, is to have crazy people come up with insane stories about things you allegedly did.
Because once it gets in people's head, they can't get it out.
It's terrible.
So, without telling you any of the details that are just disgusting about Vince McMahon, no, no, he didn't do those things.
I don't have to be in the room to know that this shit, well, I shouldn't use that word, to know it didn't happen.
It didn't happen.
That's my version of it.
How about that story about the woman who took two bong hits and claims it caused a psychosis that caused her to stab her boyfriend 118 times and then stabbed her dog to death and then tried to kill herself by stabbing herself.
And so she got a light sentence for being temporarily insane, triggered by the marijuana.
Now, here's what you need to know about that story.
It's not exactly what you think.
It's not really saying that the marijuana made her do it.
If you read it that way, that was too much.
It's sort of saying that the marijuana triggered it.
So, let me tell you this without being any kind of a medical expert.
There's no way in the world that two bongs makes you stab somebody 118 times.
That's not a thing.
That's definitely not a thing.
However, It could be that it triggered a psychotic episode.
Could be.
I don't know one way or the other.
But I can imagine that some event, especially paranoia, would trigger you if you were already nuts.
So the important thing is that the weed didn't make her nuts.
Apparently there was some, you know, nuttiness that was just basic to her.
But it's possible that, you know, the most recent thing that happened before she went nuts was a couple of bong hits.
So I think the judge was saying too much by connecting the bong hits to the psychosis.
But it might have had some kind of introductory triggering mechanism.
I don't know if it did or didn't, but it doesn't seem impossible.
Yeah, what seems far more likely is if the bong hits had anything to do with it, they were laced with some other kind of drug.
But I would think they would have tested for that.
So I feel like it would be part of the story, but I don't know.
Anyway, I wouldn't think that two bong hits makes anybody stab their boyfriend.
That's not really a thing.
A few minutes ago, Dilbert was trending on X. Why do you think Dilbert was trending?
It was because women were really mad at me.
So a number of women were reposting one of my posts.
And their comments were not about the content of it.
There was no argument about my point of view.
There rarely is.
Do you know what the attacks on me usually are?
Let me quote some.
Can you believe this is the guy that used to make Dilbert?
And that's it.
How about, what's wrong with my opinion?
Or, is there something I left out?
Is there an important context that should be considered when reading my opinion?
No.
People just want people to know that I'm a horrible person.
No reasons given.
I'm just the person who used to do Dilbert.
Ha ha ha.
But what they don't understand is that I'm an energy monster who's already been cancelled.
So just send your energy my way.
Do you know what part of this story I remember?
Dilbert was trending on X. Do you know what part of the story I don't give a fuck about?
What they were complaining about.
I don't care.
But they send me a lot of traffic.
Thank you.
Appreciate it.
Well, apparently there were some deep fake Biden robocalls.
So, allegedly, somebody used some AI software to do a fake Biden robocall that was telling people, I don't know, not to vote or something.
And I guess 11 Labs was the AI app that they used, people assume.
But here's the interesting part.
11 Labs, which allows you to clone somebody's voice in much that manner, so it was probably their software, They also have a piece of software to help you detect a fake.
That seems like a good management thing.
That they decided if they're going to make things that cause people to be confused, they would also make the tool to check it, and it'll tell you if it's made by their company.
That's a pretty good product.
But there's a separate product that does the same thing called... Let's see... Maybe I didn't write that down.
But there's another app that can do that as well.
So the good news is, if you wonder if something is real or fake, voice-wise, you do have a way to check it.
So you could just Google how to check it.
But this raises an interesting question.
Isn't it the weirdest coincidence in the world, or is it, that at exactly the time Biden is declining to the point where he can barely go in public, and his campaign will largely involve hiding, That there emerges a technology that can completely clone a person's look and voice.
And it makes me wonder, how long could Biden be deceased before the public would find out?
Now that used to be just sort of like an obvious joke, you know, like a weekend at Bernie's, you know.
So it's like the oldest, weakest joke in the world.
But what's different is, this is the first time in history you could really do it.
Like, honest to God, you could just have a video of Biden that people thought was real, and it wasn't.
And as long as he doesn't do live events, if he stays in his basement campaigning and just puts out videos and statements, how would you even know?
I mean, other than his little fake jog to his helicopter every now and then, how would you ever know?
He could be dead for days and you would have no idea.
You would still think he was doing the job.
So, that's a real thing.
Well, Leah Thomas, famous trans swimmer.
I see that Riley Gaines, who speaks out about the trans swimmers, or the trans athletes in women's sports.
He's taking legal action against the World Aquatics.
Because they banned him from competing in the women's category.
But if he wins, it could potentially create a precedent and open up a spot on women's Olympic teams.
So we might be on the cusp of America winning everything in women's sports because we just send our trans athletes.
Now, I can't think of anything that would be more fun than watching our trans athletes win every medal in the Olympics.
Now you could say that would be a travesty.
It would be, in a way.
And you could say that would be terribly unfair to the hard-working young Olympian women who are American, who should have gotten those spots but didn't.
To which I say, nobody cares about the Olympics.
If you spent your entire life getting ready for the Olympics, you wasted your time.
What a complete waste of energy, preparing for the Olympics.
When I see people in the Olympics, I feel sorry for them.
I think, God, your life must have been terrible.
Like, getting up at four in the morning, and then really, your whole shot was that if you don't do well in the Olympics, it was all wasted.
I have no respect for anybody who is practicing for the Olympics.
No respect.
It's just a complete waste of energy.
And it's so for yourself.
It's like, oh, I've got to be a gold medal winner.
What did that do for anybody?
Anyway.
That's my personal thing.
So I'd love to see an Embrace and Amplify where the Olympics becomes nothing but trans athletes.
Because it would make me watch the Olympics for the first time.
I mean, I used to when everything was boring.
But as soon as other entertainment became interesting, you know, like my smartphone and stuff, why would anybody watch the Olympics?
The Olympics, I don't think it could last in the long run.
It doesn't seem like it's interesting enough.
Yeah, it doesn't really do anything for you.
If you're already connected, if your countries are already connected by the internet and travel, you don't really need an Olympics.
Yeah, the Olympics was sort of a way for countries to get along.
It doesn't really fit anymore.
It doesn't make sense.
Well, as you know, Millions of military-age men are streaming across our southern border and possibly forming paramilitary and terrorist organizations to take down the country in October 7th fashion.
And that's pretty bad.
That's pretty bad.
But not nearly the trouble that Canada has.
Canada had Tucker Carlson giving a speech in Canada.
And if you were to listen to Trudeau, who some people call Castro's illegitimate son, who some people call Castrato, which is pretty funny if you think about it,
He's all melting down and angry about Tucker Carlson visiting Canada, and apparently Trudeau has met with some other powerful people to see how they can survive if Trump becomes president.
Yeah, you like that?
Castrato.
It's a keeper.
People have to look it up, but once you look it up, it's pretty funny.
Anyway, so yeah, poor Canada.
They have to deal with Tucker Carlson in his free speech, in his opinions.
He's going to bring down the great northern country of Canada with his opinions.
He's a danger to the world, but not as much as Donald Trump returning to the presidency.
Run away!
Be afraid!
Well, here's something I don't understand, and no matter how many times it's in the news, I'm going to say I don't understand it.
Inflation is coming down.
How?
How?
How is that even possible?
Can anybody explain how inflation can come down?
Is it just lies?
Yeah, maybe it's election year lies.
I know.
I mean, it is true that the price of gas is down from what it used to be.
From what it used to be.
I just had a look at that.
I just got a compliment by text.
Well, so, you know, I have a, I keep telling you this, I have a degree in economics and I don't know how inflation can be coming down.
You know, uh, in what world do you have, you know, death through the roof and all that.
And so much money was pumped into the economy and inflation is coming down.
I don't know.
I don't quite get it.
Because we have full employment?
None of this makes sense.
So there's something deeply mysterious about it all, and it could be that we don't understand economics.
It could be that there's some other distortion in our system that could be a problem later that we just haven't noticed yet.
I'm a little worried about this, honestly.
Inflation coming down, if it's not true, Is a sign of a much bigger thing, a bigger problem.
Yeah, it could be just the election year.
All right, let's talk about that weaponized Department of Justice.
I saw a post by Amuse.
So, you know, Peter Navarro, who was on the Trump staff, but he refused to do testimony to the illegitimate January 6th committee.
Who lost all the records of the test it lost half of the records the illegitimate January 6th committee Because he said that it would violate Trump's immunity Because Navarro was you know under under the Trump, you know staff basically now that was rejected and so he's gonna go to prison for four months Now does that sound like something that would have happened to a Democrat I
No.
There's not a fucking chance a Democrat would have gone to jail for this.
This is the weaponized Department of Justice.
If I didn't already have enough reason to support Trump, I would support Trump just for this fucking thing.
Just for putting Peter Navarro in jail.
This Peter Navarro is me.
He's fucking me.
If they're putting Peter Navarro in jail for bullshit, there's nothing protecting you.
So, I'm down for the United States of Texas.
The federal government has fucking lost it.
They do not have my support.
They do not have my support.
I've never said that before.
Yeah.
The American government has just lost its entire legitimacy with the public.
You put Peter Navarro in jail for one fucking day, and I'm done with the United States.
You know, as a respectable institution, I mean, I'm not going to move because I still like the weather.
I like the health care and the weather.
It's hard to move.
But, oh my God, I have no respect for the government whatsoever.
This is a travesty, a crime of...
Honestly, I don't think anything's bothered me more.
This Peter Navarro thing, because it's so personal, there's a person who's just trying to do his job.
This guy was working for the government.
You think he did that for the paycheck?
You think he took a job working for Trump because he thought that was his good paycheck?
No.
He was serving the country in a way that I'm almost positive he thought was helping.
And he goes to fucking jail for it.
Let me say this.
If Trump gets into office, I do want him to get revenge.
I do want him to get revenge.
And not because revenge is a good thing.
Not because it's a good thing.
You just need mutually assured destruction.
Whoever's behind this stuff like this, the January 6th Committee, they all belong in jail.
The January 6th committee belong in jail.
And if Trump can do it, I would back that completely.
Because they did an illegitimate process.
They knew it.
They lost or encrypted half of the notes.
And they're putting this guy in jail.
And the entire thing was an op.
January 6th through the committee was all an op.
Every one of these people belong in jail.
And you could call it revenge, but you need mutually assured destruction.
You do this to Peter Navarro, and I'm in favor of our government coming for you.
Just for this.
Just for Peter.
Yeah, this one's too personal.
This isn't the news.
The Navarro thing is purely personal.
This is me against the government, because I just feel like I'm him.
I feel like I'm in that jail.
So I back Texas and I back Peter Navarro and fuck the government.
You've just lost it.
Anyway.
Would you like to see how the Washington Post works with Biden to smear a critic?
That sounds like business as usual.
All right, so this is the Washington Post reports that some Biden friends, you know, people on his team, met to try to figure out how to go after the public critics of the Bidens, you know, especially the criminal bribery allegations.
And one of those is Jonathan Turley, who is writing about it.
Now, here's the interesting thing.
Why would the Washington Post That is very pro-Biden.
Why would they write a story about a secret meeting between people who are going to try to smear public people and maybe do lawsuits and go after them?
Why would they do that?
There's only one reason.
There's no way this little group of people could not have kept this a secret.
It obviously was part of the operation that the news would cover it.
So they get the least ethical group, the Washington Post.
We're not really, I wouldn't call them a serious newspaper or anything.
They're just basically a Democrat tool.
And So they write this story that normally nobody would have access to because it's part of the op.
The op is to scare people to stop talking about Biden of any potential crimes.
That's a real thing that's happening.
And you're watching it.
Now, if you didn't know the players, you wouldn't know this was happening.
Because if you didn't know that the Washington Post is not a legitimate news source, it's just a Democrat tool, you would say, oh, looks like they got a scoop.
No, probably not.
I wasn't there, but probably.
The most likely explanation is that they're part of the op, and they're part of scaring people away from free speech.
That's right.
It's just another one of many efforts to suppress free speech, to make it illegal.
So do you think they're going to do a Peter Navarro on Turley?
You know, find something that they can get him for illegally?
Yes!
It looks like they're going to go after him because he's the best voice for this legal stuff, you know, that is read by Republicans at least.
So everything about this you should be worried about.
All right.
I would like to now... I'd like to cause some trouble.
This might be one of the reasons Dilbert was trending today.
They don't like to use my name.
So they trend Dilbert instead.
So I get less attention.
But here's something that I proposed today on the X platform.
And I'm serious about it.
So, just listen to this.
Alright, here's a reframe for understanding basically everything wrong with the country.
Alright?
Here's a big reframe.
We think we have racial and political divide.
We do not.
We have a broken mating system.
Marriage, in particular, is broken.
Now, I didn't write this, but I'll say it now.
One of the best frames for understanding the world is energy.
If energy is taken from some situation, it doesn't disappear.
It just gets transferred.
You know, energy doesn't get destroyed.
It's just a quality of physics.
So if energy is removed from one situation, it's got to go somewhere.
There are a whole bunch of more single people than there ever have been, and so the energy that society used to give pretty much to their family, you know, their greatest energy, they don't have that anymore.
So where'd all that energy go?
What happens to all the energy that a species that was designed for mating If they can't do the primary thing they're designed for by a million years of evolution, where does the energy go?
Right?
Where does it go?
It doesn't go away.
It goes somewhere.
And you're watching that happen in real time.
The energy is going in two different directions.
Now, you saw that in a number of countries, including the US, South Korea, Germany, Great Britain, that women are becoming more progressive and men are becoming more conservative.
Like, a lot.
It's like a big divide.
What's driving that?
It's also the failure of the marriage and mating process.
Now, marriage as a proxy for the mating strategy in general is what you want to think of.
So it's not about the rules and the laws around marriage.
It's about the mating instinct, which marriage used to handle.
Now, I go on.
When men and women have adequate mating strategies, they put their focus on mating.
And in so doing, they become biologically satisfied.
Or at least it keeps them busy, right?
I'm not saying everybody who has kids is delighted about it, but at least it keeps them busy.
You know, their energy is going to a productive thing for society.
But when mating strategies fail for a variety of social reasons, like now, you know, you have everything from OnlyFans to women are working in, you know, earning their own money to You can have a kid on a wedlock to... You name it.
Basically all the forces that make marriage less valuable than it used to be.
So when mating strategies fail, two things happen.
Men become dangerous and women become batshit crazy.
And those women, if you believe biology, the women would be doing things that would give them more access to sperm.
So what you would expect is that the men who don't have a purpose would become dangerous.
And sure enough, seems like there are a lot of single dangerous men streaming across the border, starting wars in other countries, et cetera.
But for women, their primary incentive is to get closer to sperm, which is carried in humans.
So if you look at all the things that women are backing, When the traditional mating strategy of marriage doesn't quite work anymore, suddenly women are in favor of open borders.
Now, this is a generalization.
It has to do with Democrats, not Republicans.
It's not every Democrat.
But, if you took the single women out of the mix, we wouldn't have open borders.
Do you all agree with that?
You know, on average, if you took women out of the Democratic Party, The men would say, you know what?
We probably ought to close these borders.
So it's mostly a male-female problem, not a politics problem, and not even a race problem.
Now, what about DEI?
If you're a woman, and you want to get closer to sperm, does DEI do it?
It does.
Because without DEI, women might be relegated to women-only jobs.
Where there are fewer men.
But DEI puts the woman in the executive suite surrounded by high quality men with good sperm.
It also guarantees that masculine men from other races are coming in.
Right?
So I believe that women are pursuing a mating strategy that is best embedded in the progressive philosophies.
So everything about bringing in literally millions of young mating level men, I believe is a mating strategy.
It's just that we believe it's politics or we believe it's race or we believe it's something else.
I think it's a mating strategy.
Now if you looked at who is providing all the resources and charity for the immigrants who are arriving.
I don't know, but I'll bet there are more women.
Does anybody know that?
The prediction would be that the people who are taking care of the zillions of men coming in would be more women than men.
Because again, they would be getting close to sperm.
Now, I'm not saying that to be disgusting.
I'm just being biologically specific.
That they have a million years of evolution that makes them have to be near sperm.
Because it's just a biological imperative which they may not consciously be aware of.
So, here's the problem.
Every time we talk about the problem, the crisis on the border, do you know what we inaccurately say?
Actually, it's accurate.
But it's the wrong frame.
What we say is, they're all military-age men.
That's true, and it's a very big risk.
But you know what we're missing?
The base problem.
The base problem is that they're all reproduction-age men.
And that's why they're coming in.
Because our women are fed up with the men in this country and with marriage and they're just saying, let's just open the fucking border and let 10 million young men who look like they have testosterone come in.
So, what you think is Democrats versus Republicans is not that.
That's a downstream effect.
Do you remember Andrew Breitbart's famous thing that politics is downstream from culture?
Well, culture just got rid of our best mating strategy, marriage.
And so, what's downstream from that culture now, looks like we have a Democrat versus Republican problem, and we don't.
What we have is women trying to get closer to sperm, men who don't have a purpose, which makes them dangerous, and we're acting like it's some other problem.
The base problem is that we don't have mating strategies for either men or women that are as good as they used to be, and that energy is going somewhere else.
And a lot of it is to fix the problem.
So women are trying to fix the problem by bringing in so many men that their odds of reproduction go up.
If you're a woman who can't get a guy, but you would like to get married, do you think you have a better chance if you bring in 10 million men from other countries and no women?
Yes.
The math suggests that if you add 10 million men to the equation, and no women, obviously there are women coming across the border, but on average it's men, your odds of finding a man of some sort who has testosterone and can make you a baby is much better.
So, every day that we think this is some kind of a Congress problem, or a Democrat problem, or it's a political problem, or it's a race problem, those are all true.
It's all of those things.
And it's a crime problem and a terrorism problem.
All true.
But the base problem is that we don't have a mating system that works.
And everything else is downstream from that.
So, let's see who knows that we have a problem.
Well, let's see.
Bill Ackman, who is not a Republican, has famously said, and he said it again today on X, that the current immigration crisis should guarantee Biden losing in a landslide, which is what he doesn't want.
I mean, he wants a Democrat to win, but not Biden necessarily.
So Bill Ackman, who is male and Democrat, says, uh-oh, no, close the border.
RFK Jr., who's running for president and is Democrat, says, loudly and clearly, close the fucking border!
Right?
Because he's a man, and that's more important than the Democrat part.
How about Obama and Biden in 2007?
Both Obama and Biden were very much against illegal immigration in 2007, back when they were both men.
Obama's still probably a man and still opposed to this level of, and Biden's neither a man nor a woman, he's more like a cadaver.
But what about the women?
Well, let's look at a recent Supreme Court ruling.
The recent Supreme Court ruling, 1-5-4, that the federal government could take down some of the barbwire systems.
We'll talk about that.
But all four of the women on the Supreme Court voted for less security on the border.
Now, John Roberts voted with them.
They gave them the majority, five to four.
Yeah, let's sip to that 34-minute glitch.
All right, we're gonna sip to the glitch.
We don't know what it is, but at 34 minutes into my live stream every day, there's some kind of a technical glitch.
Sip to the glitch!
Sip to the glitch.
That's a good idea.
We're gonna use that energy.
All right, so the men who are Democrats and prominent and willing to speak out You know, Ackman, RFK Jr., even Obama earlier, were against illegal immigration being out of control.
And the four out of four women on the Supreme Court voted for something that would make us less secure at the border, and then John Roberts joined them.
But it's not unusual for him to, you know, be an unusual vote.
So, I feel like every sign is pointing in the same direction, that we have a mating A broken mating system and all of it is just fucking up the whole country.
Everything is based on that.
Everything.
All right.
So, let me say this 'cause I haven't weighed in on this yet.
In 2016, I was opposed to mass deportation.
And a lot of you gave me a hard time and you were all pretty angry about it because you liked the mass deportation.
I get it.
I would not even criticize you for your opinion.
We had a different opinion about whether we could absorb them and what was the more American thing to do, given that we're an immigrant country.
Those are actually honest disagreements.
However, I was operating under the assumption that it wasn't so many immigrants that we couldn't absorb them.
It wasn't a perfect system.
You know, if we just stopped the extra ones from coming in, we would absorb the ones over here.
They got jobs.
They want to work.
They have American character, you know, family, religion, work.
You know, I like all those things.
So I'm very pro specifically Central American and Mexican immigrants.
And part of that is emotional.
Because I have lots of contact with that community, as Californians do, and they're all awesome.
I mean, I have universal, super positive experiences with the immigrant community.
Most of them are working.
They often work for me in various capacities, if I need help and whatever.
Seems like there's always somebody from another country who's doing the work.
So, for me, the immigration had more positive than maybe you could see, and so we would have a disagreement on that.
However, that said, that was 2016, and it's not irrelevant, the rate of people coming in.
That's really relevant.
So, uh, officially I would like to reverse my opinion on mass deportation.
I think every person who came in, uh, not from Mexico, not from Mexico, but every person who came in, not from Mexico during the Biden administration, I think they need to go home.
I think they need to be mass deported.
Now what we'll end up with, is probably a more targeted deporting.
I think what we'll really do is we'll try really hard to vet people.
If somebody already has a job, we're gonna say, ah, okay, you do have a job, so I guess you can stay.
That's probably how it'll turn out.
Because, you know, in the end, politics is compromise.
But I don't think that works.
Because if you don't kick out every single one that came during the Biden administration, not counting the Mexicans, because I am treating them as special and superior.
Superior in the sense that Mexico is our neighbor.
And the Mexicans coming in are almost entirely just want work and a good life.
The people coming from other countries might actually be here for military reasons.
And I don't have any patience for sorting out the good ones from the bad ones.
None.
Now I get that Mexico might send some MS-13 people too.
But that's a risk so far we've been able to manage, and I'm more pro-Mexico and pro-Mexicans than I am pro-anybody from anywhere else who doesn't have American interests.
Because the thing about the Mexicans that come in, besides the fact that they're good Americans, you know, almost all the time, except for MS-13, is that They have a stake in America succeeding.
Because there's no way Mexico does well if America fails.
But people coming from, you know, the Middle East?
Maybe they don't care if Mexico and the United States fail.
So I have a whole different level of feeling about the Mexican immigrants, and I might extend that to Central America.
Once you get to Venezuela, there's a question about them emptying the prisons, so maybe I'd cut it off with Central America.
But where I'm at is, We probably have to send 10 million people back, minimum.
So I want to be as clear as possible that this is a reversal of opinion, but not because my opinion changed, it's because the facts changed.
And now the facts are, it's just an unacceptable flow.
We can't have that.
So Trump says mass deportations, and the first time he said it, I didn't think he was going to do it, and he didn't, which is one of the reasons I supported him.
Because I didn't think he meant it when he said he was going to deport 25 million people.
It didn't seem possible.
But deporting all of these people, it is possible.
The ones who came in the last four years.
And I support it.
So, weirdly, I supported Trump the first time because I didn't think, in part, because I didn't think he would really deport.
And he didn't.
Now I think he will.
And so I support him because he will.
I don't think anybody else would.
All right.
And then there's a photo of the Utah Democrats dressed in all black to mourn the passing of a bill that banned men from girls' bathrooms and banned DEI from public education.
Were most of the people who thought that was the most important issue of the day, were most of them women?
Yes, they were.
There were a few men hiding in the back, but basically it seemed to be led and organized by women.
So there again, the men are assembling to defend the border, and the women are complaining about that men can't use the girls' bathrooms.
Now, when they say men, we're really talking about trans.
So that's what their big issue was.
So what do you get if trans people use girls' bathrooms?
It puts women closer to sperm.
Right?
Every time you put somebody who has sperm in their body in a woman's competition, women are closer to sperm.
Now, is it a mating strategy that they want trans to use the bathrooms?
Not consciously.
That would be insane.
That wouldn't be any kind of conscious decision.
But it has the same effect.
And biologically, I think we're driven biologically and then we rationalize things after the fact.
So I don't think it's a coincidence that every time women get involved is to increase their exposure to people who have sperm in their little bag they're carrying around.
Does that seem like a coincidence to you?
Let me test the audience here, because I gave you quite a bit.
How many of you are accepting, or at least you're thinking about it, the idea that we have a broken mating strategy and that we see its activity in everything that's broken?
All right.
I got some no's, I got some yes's.
Good.
Well, that's perfect for what I'm doing.
If I divided you on that question, it means you're thinking about it.
Yeah.
No, the bathroom one could be a coincidence.
But keep looking for the pattern.
Look for the pattern that it seems like some kind of bad correction for a mating problem.
All right.
Find the propaganda.
Here's a test.
Joe Scarborough is talking about the border bill.
So apparently there was a proposed bill to correct the border.
Did you all hear that?
Governor Newsom is saying, yeah, you know, it's the Republicans.
The Republicans want it as an issue.
They don't want it as a solution because we Democrats Offer this the best The best border bill that's ever been offered.
It was the best one and then the Republicans turned it down and There's some quote or report that Trump had said directly he doesn't approve of the bill.
He'd rather have the issue Because he can win on the issue Is there anything left out of the story?
Did I leave anything out?
Like Joe Scarborough is?
Let's read Joe Scarborough's take.
He called it the toughest border security bill in a generation.
He said that Republicans recklessly killed the toughest border security bill in a generation and then complain about border security because they have no shame.
Is that what happened?
Was it the toughest security bill in a generation?
Yes, yes it was.
Was the toughest bill in a generation adequate?
No, no it wasn't.
He's basically saying, if you don't accept the serial killer that only killed ten people, I don't think you're considering that serial killers have sometimes killed more than 10 people.
So really, if you're not in favor of murdering 10 people, you have no shame.
It's actually crazy talk.
Now, do you think that Joe Scarborough is not aware that the so-called toughest bill was going to allow in, allow in, and this doesn't even count the people that were getaways, it would allow in 1.8 million people a year.
So the bill that was supposed to fix the border specifically would make it worse because it would make it legal for 5,000 people a day to come in and they wouldn't even start trying to catch people or stop them until the first 5,000 walked across.
That is not really a border security bill.
That's some bullshit that they tried to put together, and then they tried to pair it with the Ukraine funding.
So the entire point of the border bill was to be this fake border bill that they could say in public, hey, I know you people aren't going to read the details of the border bill.
But let me tell you, because you believe anything Democrats say, that it was a great border bill.
In fact, it was so great, it was the best one in a generation.
Now who says that?
Who says it's the best one in a generation, when what you really meant to say, didn't you, is that it would solve the border problem?
Huh.
Why didn't you say that bill would solve the border problem, since that's really the question?
Nobody said, can you please compare this border bill with historical other border bills?
Nobody asked for that.
They said, we have a problem.
We know how to fix it.
Can you do a bill that will fix it?
Well, how about the best bill in a generation?
Okay, it's like you didn't even hear me.
I'm saying, could you make a border bill that would stop the flow of people coming across the border?
I'll tell you what I could do for you.
I'll give you the best border bill in a generation.
No, fuck you.
Stop saying that.
I don't want the best bill in a generation because that's still going to be worthless.
Could you do a bill that would stop the illegal immigration?
I could give you the best border bill in a generation.
So that's the game they're playing.
So look for that propaganda, that is your propaganda watch list.
Watch for them describing the border bill as the best one they've done in a generation.
Do you know what the correct answer is?
Well, thank you for reminding me that Congress has been a piece of shit for my entire life.
And they're still a piece of shit.
So if your argument is that Congress has been a useless piece of shit for my entire fucking life, yeah, it's the best bill in the generation.
Congratulations.
Good job.
Now, how about stopping the threat coming across the border?
Oh, no.
Best one in the generation.
All right.
Then there's the question of, did Trump really say he wants to kill that bill so he can use it as a political thing?
And suppose he did.
How do you feel about that?
Suppose that was true?
Suppose Trump said, kill it because I prefer it as an issue.
Is that bad?
Nope.
That's not bad.
Because the thing he wanted to kill was, repeat after me, the strongest bill in a generation and bullshit.
He wanted to kill bullshit because bullshit doesn't stop the border.
But Having it as an issue so they can't say, hey, look, we did something.
We did the best border bill.
It hasn't stopped it yet, but we just started.
We just got the money.
The Republicans are dragging their feet.
So basically, the Democrats wanted their own issue and not fix it.
They wanted to say, hey, we've got the political solution, but not actually solving it.
Because by election day, you wouldn't know if it worked or not.
They'd say, oh, I need a little more time.
It's going to work through the system.
It's all taken care of.
Just give us another month after the election.
Trump, quite reasonably and wisely, said that he would get a political advantage if they don't pass that.
But it's not like that was gonna fix it, and he's the guy against the fix.
He's the guy against the fake fix that would allow the bad guys to win, and the borders to be open forever.
So, yes, he should use this as a political axe, exactly the way he said.
And yes, his allies should kill that bill, which it looks like they did.
So, good work, Trump.
And Here's some news that you're only going to hear from you know people like Ted Cruz and people who understand what's going on We don't need a new border bill Because Trump didn't have a new border bill and he stopped immigration.
Do you know how he did it?
He did the remain in Mexico policy that Biden reversed and He was building a border wall that didn't make a difference yet, but if he'd kept going, by now it could have made a difference, and Biden stopped it.
And then Biden reinstituted catch and release.
None of those things required a border bill.
They were all things that Trump did and got away with, and they're all things that Biden undid and destroyed the country.
So even the conversation about a border bill is completely bullshit, because we don't need one.
We just need to enforce the law and use executive power the way it was meant to be used.
Executive power was meant to be used exactly this way.
You know, those gray area situations where you get a big crisis and the only thing you can do is you hope your leader is strong enough to just do the hard stuff and ask questions later.
That's what it's for.
You want a strong executive who's willing to take a chance to do the right thing, you know, if maybe asked to explain it later.
So that's our deal.
We give the president's power, but we know they're also taking a risk on our behalf.
All right.
So, I've told you that one of the best follows on the X platform is KanekoaTheGreat.
How many of you are following that account if you're on X?
KanekoaTheGreat.
I just want to see.
All right.
A lot of yeses.
All right, here's what I want from you.
If you're on X and you're not following this account yet, I'd like you to do it today.
And today specifically, and there's a reason.
I'm going to tell you what the bad people have done to him, because he's reporting on it today.
He's one of the most useful and accurate, in my opinion, independent journalists in the world, at least in America.
So he's a great asset to the country.
And here's what happened to them.
And now, this is not a story about what happened to one person.
This is a story about how it's done.
And it's called the Wrap-Up Smear.
And it works this way, generally.
And I'll tell you how it worked in this case.
The way you do it is you find some organization that somebody's heard of to condemn somebody.
With, you know, you call them a bad name.
They could be a racist or whatever.
Whatever it is you could call them.
Then once any entity has made a claim, every other entity after that can then refer to the first entity and say, well, he's an accused or racist or whatever it is.
Right?
So the wrap up smear is somebody doing a fake news and then the so-called legitimate news, which is also just fake news, will refer to the first one as if that had somehow been proven.
But of course it's just bullshit.
Right?
Now, given that you know that that's a real thing, and it's not just something somebody observed, you know, by accident happened, it's an actual op.
It's something people plan and execute on a regular basis in the field of politics, right?
So now that you know it's an op and a normal one that they run, And now that you know that they're targeting anybody who had any voice that was useful and not on the Democrat side, Peter Navarro, for example, right?
People like me being canceled and you say to yourself, that wasn't political, wasn't it?
Of course it was.
Yeah.
Now I gave people a reason to cancel me, but it was so political.
I mean, it wouldn't have happened otherwise.
So here's Kaneko with a great story in his own words.
The New York Times is saying I'm a QAnon influencer and an election misinformation super spreader on X. That's pretty bad.
If you tie somebody to QAnon, you're smearing them by association.
And election misinformation, that's really bad.
Did either of those things happen?
Nope.
Canecoa has no contact, no association, nothing to do with Q. It was simply a statement that somebody made, and I'll tell you where that came from.
All right, here's the thing that kicked it off.
Canecoa the Great shared a 32-page report on election fraud from the previous president.
So Trump apparently posted something about election fraud, and Canecoa shared it.
Now, that should have been the news that everybody was sharing.
In other words, every legitimate news story should have said, are you saying that Trump is sharing a 32-page report on election fraud?
Whether you believe the report or didn't, it's still the same news, isn't it?
So, Ken Okoye the Great, being an independent journalist type, reports the news.
That's just the news.
So, then he goes on.
Rather than disproving the report, the New York Times just calls me names.
That's exactly what was happening to me when Dilbert was trending today on X. The people who were coming after me didn't have any argument about anything.
They didn't even have a disagreement that I could find.
They just came to call me names.
Shouldn't people hear both sides of the debate to decide what's true?
So read the report, decide for yourself.
Isn't that better than those in power labeling anything against their narrative as misinformation and censoring it, which is our current system?
For example, CISA's emails this week show they were worried about mail-in voting, but still pushed Big Tech to censor users with similar worries.
Doesn't that seem fair to report?
That the very people who were censoring you for those concerns had the same concerns.
Yeah, that seems pretty fair to report that.
Doesn't that show labeling things as misinformation is more about controlling the narrative than the truth?
Yes, it does.
That's exactly what that shows.
Because they were censoring information they agreed with, because it didn't work for them politically.
They agreed with it, and they censored it.
And it's in writing that they agreed with it, and then they censored it, or tried to.
And then Kenoko says, I've written over 60 articles, made thousands of social media posts, and got billions of online views in the last three years, and I've never promoted QAnon.
Yet media matters.
Oh, here it is.
Media matters.
Huh.
You ever heard that name before?
Media Matters.
If you know the players, you know that Media Matters is not a legitimate organization.
They're a Democrat hit organization.
So, Media Matters called them a QAnon influencer.
So all the other garbage media outlets repeat their claim.
Their evidence?
Here's the evidence.
He shared a JFK speech, and the video creator wrote the hashtag of WWG1WGA, it's sort of a QAnon hashtag, on it.
Even though the video had nothing to do with QAnon.
It was a JFK speech.
He literally shared a speech by a President of the United States, with no commentary.
But because there was a little hashtag on it, he got called the QAnon guy.
There was no QAnon anything, it was just literally the President's speech, unedited.
So now Media Matters smears them because they found that little hidden Easter egg there.
They also say I'm a QAnon influencer because I shared posts to a Telegram page with over 50 people, some of whom promoted QAnon.
So in other words, he shared some information on Telegram, But some of the people he shared it with were QAnon people.
So he's being accused for the habits of his audience.
Now, my audience are all law-abiding, awesome people.
But if anybody snuck into the mix who was bad, wouldn't I be associated with that by?
And that's the same thing they do with Trump.
They say, look at all these bad people supporting Trump.
That can't be a coincidence.
Smear by association.
Kevin Carter says, I can't control what other people write on the internet, of course.
And he says, that's also how Telegram works.
I shared my post to a handful of channels and others shared theirs.
That's the whole story.
He just shared some stuff and other people shared it too.
I'm not responsible for the content others post.
But this is how the game played.
So Media Matters accuses him of being a QAnon influencer.
Then the ADL publishes a negative story, also labeling me a QAnon influencer.
So now you've got two sources.
Well, if you don't believe Media Matters, you're certainly going to believe the ADL.
You've heard of them, right?
So they wouldn't lie to you, would they?
Well, let me tell you.
The ADL, the president of the ADL, this year, well, within the last year, said in public That I'm a Holocaust denier.
Now, I'm not a Holocaust denier.
I've never even met one.
Literally, I've never met one.
I don't even know what that's all about.
But do you think the ADL is a credible organization?
No, they're just a Democratic organization, like Media Matters.
But if you have two of them agreeing with each other, and they're names you think you've heard, Media Matters.
I feel like I've heard of them.
Well, if they're saying it, Well, oh, but the ADL agrees.
Oh, OK.
Well, now you've got Media Matters, you've got the ADL.
That's a lot of evidence there.
But that's not all.
And then Business Insider attacks Elon Musk for engaging with a supposed QAnon influencer, citing Media Matters and the ADL.
Now, remember, the ADL also targeted Elon Musk.
And now Business Insider is going to use the ADL and Media Matters as their source, because as Bill Ackman said today on X, Business Insider is basically just a cesspool.
I'm paraphrasing.
But even Bill Ackman, Democrat, said no, Business Insider is just a fucking cesspool.
It's nothing close to being any kind of a legitimate media source.
Following suit, Forbes claims QAnon influencers are gaining traction on X, and they reference Business Insider.
See how it's done?
Media Matters just makes something up, you know, based on some hashtag.
Then ADL backs them.
And now it's legitimate.
So Business Insider piles on.
Now it's more legitimate.
These are all just Democrat organs.
And then Forbes, which is now a Democrat organ.
It didn't used to be.
But Forbes, I think it was sold by the Forbes family.
But it turns into just garbage at this point.
Forbes is.
So Forbes is just Democrat garbage.
And then the Washington Post, the New York Times, and other media outlets, then they cite Forbes and Business Insider to perpetuate the narrative.
In reality, the corporate media uses personal attacks, blah blah, it's propaganda, not journalism.
Now, do you see how they laundered the fake news?
If the only place it appears was Media Matters, that's the lowest level of credibility, because even Democrats know that that's just propaganda, right?
I don't think there's any Democrat who understands politics who thinks Media Matters is some kind of a journalistic enterprise.
So then the ADL, which has a slightly better reputation than Media Matters, because people don't know that maybe they used to be good, but they're definitely just corrupt and evil and malevolent Democrat force at this point.
So now ADL adds a little credibility because people haven't caught on to what the ADL is up to.
And that allows Business Insider, that is just a little bit more credible, but shouldn't be, than the ADL.
So now you've ratcheted up your credibility from the worst, Media Matters, to just slightly better but terrible, ADL, to just maybe slightly better, Business Insider, but now you're talking about something everybody's heard of.
Huh.
Maybe you didn't know what the ADL was.
Maybe you didn't know what Media Matters was, but you probably heard of Business Insider.
So now it's sounding credible because you don't know that Business Insider long ago turned into a cesspool and just a Democrat organ.
But now Forbes gets in on it.
And you say to yourself, Forbes, isn't that like a Republican thing?
Oh my God, even the Republicans would say it, but you don't know.
That Forbes is no longer any kind of a credible entity.
I guess it used to be.
But at the moment, it's just a Democrat organ.
But you probably didn't know that.
How many of you knew that?
I found out when they went after me.
When Forbes started hammering on me, I thought, what's going on here?
Steve Forbes literally would contact me every Christmas for several years to ask me to autograph my books for members of his family.
Steve Forbes.
He owned Forbes.
And I couldn't understand why Forbes was going after me, and I complained to him once, and I don't remember what he said.
But I didn't realize the business had been sold.
So, I think that's what's going on.
I think the business was sold.
I need a fact check on that, but I think it was.
So, if you didn't know that, you'd think, oh my God, even Republicans I have this opinion about this.
And then by the time it gets to the Washington Post, even Democrats don't know the Washington Post is not real journalism.
And they think that the New York Times is real as well.
So do you see how they laundered it?
Let me give you the list again.
And it is from the least credible up to what Democrats think is credible, but Republicans know better.
Least credible, Media Matters.
Next, ADL.
Next, Business Insider.
Next, Forbes.
Washington Post.
New York Times.
So they got this bullshit from one hashtag all the way up to the New York Times.
Now that's good.
Now, if you didn't know that this is a well-organized, understood op, and that it won't be the first time or the last time you see this play, It's completely different once you see the gears of the machine, isn't it?
And I think that's what's different about 2024.
In 2024, we're calling all their plays before they happen, because now we see the gears of the machine.
You know, smart people, you know, the Glenn Greenwalds and etc., and Kanekoa, have been helping us understand how this big Democrat machine works.
And once you see all the gears of the machine, you can predict what it does next.
Right?
And we're doing it.
People are predicting what's next.
We all expect that there'll be big protests, at least in the summer, and certainly if Trump gets elected, there'll be protests after.
But we all know they're not real.
When BLM was happening, it kind of looked real to me.
And when Antifa was happening, I was thinking, eh, they don't look totally real, but Maybe a lot of them are, but if it happened today, we wouldn't, we would know that none of it's real.
And there might be like some new organization that the new, the new, uh, you know, Wall Street, whatever that group was, or, you know, it's going to be some new fake organization popping up if they need one.
So we do all the plays.
So, and that's why I tell you, if you're not following Kaneko the Great, what you need to do, if you want this world to be a better place, is follow him because of this.
Because of this.
You want to boost this signal.
Every time they come after one of us, Your best reaction, let's say your bodily defense system, you know, your white blood cells.
If you're looking to defend the organism against attack, you need to concentrate your fire and make sure you're boosting the message of the good ones.
And Canna Coke, the great, is absolutely, the content is sensational.
But you need to follow them just because they're coming after them.
That'd be good enough by itself.
All right, well, so basically Israel, so the International Court of Justice ruled 15 to 2 on the question, I guess South Africa brought to the International Court of Justice, the question of Gaza and whether or not it was a genocide being Now, this is one of those stories I think the initial reporting was basically all wrong.
And we're just getting a clearer image of it now.
So it looks like the court basically is asking Israel to maintain records and demonstrate in the future that they're not committing a genocide.
Now, that's not terrible.
But it still puts Israel in the position of they have to defend against being a genocide, which sort of is the assumption you're a genocide unless you prove otherwise.
You know, the opposite of innocent until proven guilty.
But it's a government.
So, you know, governments have to be transparent.
Now, do you think it's in any way possible for Israel to keep all the information that would get to the point of whether somebody else thinks that it was a genocide?
Because that's sort of subjective, isn't it?
They would have to guess what somebody else would think they should be keeping.
I don't know how you could possibly do that.
So it seems like a setup, that there's no way they can accomplish what the court is asking, which is make sure you're transparent so we can decide later if you are a genocide or not.
I don't think anybody could do that, even if they wanted to, because you don't know exactly what information in the future you should be protecting or what they'd ask for.
And if they ask for more than you legitimately thought was worth protecting, what are you going to do?
Are you then guilty of a genocide because you didn't know what records to keep or something like that?
I don't know.
So the whole thing's illegitimate.
I don't think there's no real impact on Israel at the moment, but Netanyahu, of course, blasted them for even entertaining the thought that self-defense was genocide.
Now, here's how I see it, and probably many of you do as well.
Let's say your neighbor had 15 children, and you went over there one day with a machine gun, and you shot everybody in his family.
Sort of a mass murder genocide in that case.
Wouldn't you agree?
I would.
I'd call that a mass murder, you know, sort of in the family of a genocide, but smaller.
Yeah.
So at least a mass murder.
Now, suppose instead that neighbor was training all of his own children
to wear suicide vests and one at a time they were coming to your house to try to kill you but maybe maybe you got lucky and you weren't there once and you know it blew up the living room but you got it fixed and the next time the next kid came up um you know you you had a gun so you shot him in the sidewalk and he detonated into the sidewalk all right now you're still living next to your neighbor he's got 13 kids left and he's told you directly I'm training them all to kill you
So instead of waiting for them to come one by one from next door to kill you, you say, I'm gonna take my machine gun and I'm just gonna kill everybody there.
I'd call that self-defense.
What would you call it?
What would you call it?
I'd call it self-defense.
I would say murdering his 13 children who had committed no crimes under that specific situation, 100% self-defense.
And with no ambiguity.
To me, that's not even a gray area.
Now, I don't think analogies should be used—yeah, right—I don't think analogies should be used in place of reason.
So you shouldn't use the analogy to decide what Israel should do or can do or did, right?
So don't take the analogy and say, oh, let's just apply it to Israel and we're done thinking.
Instead, use the analogy in the correct way, which is to sort of open your mind to a frame for understanding Israel.
So now let's just look at Israel.
If Israel doesn't kill basically everybody who was sworn to kill them, And has tried, then they have not executed self-defense very well.
In my opinion, they have a right to kill everybody who ever said we want to kill Israelis.
Because they have clearly shown that it's not just talk.
They're operationalizing it.
They're training the kids.
They're brainwashing them.
They're literally training them to go kill Israelis.
Under those conditions, you can kill all of their children.
I mean, the pushback would be insane, and I don't think that's going to happen.
I don't think Israel is going to kill all their children.
But they do have an ethical and moral right to do that.
It's just so impractical, it can't possibly happen.
But in my opinion, Israel is operating under complete self-defense.
I'm 100% supportive of everything they do.
It is war, and don't be silly, there will be war crimes.
Maybe not prosecuted.
Just like every other war.
There will be terrible atrocities that won't be prosecuted.
Like every war.
So the question is, do you do war or not?
In this case, it was obvious they had to.
So, do I care that the Palestinians have weaponized their kids to the point where Israel would be wise to slay them?
It's a tragedy.
It's also nothing else you can do about it.
Yeah, nothing else you can do about it.
So, I don't think there's any chance that Gaza will be ever run by Hamas or even the Palestinians without Israel's thumb on everything.
And that's the only way it's going to go.
Meanwhile, the Hooties have fired another anti-ship ballistic missile, this time towards the USS Kearney.
What?
What?
I thought they were just shooting at transportation and tanker ships.
They just fired a ballistic missile at one of our warships.
Now we shot it down.
So the ship had anti-ballistic missiles and luckily it worked.
But now that the Kearney is a destroyer, so that's a pretty serious ship.
Well, what are we supposed to do?
Yeah, it's easy to say war, but that's what they're asking for, aren't they?
Aren't the Hooties trying to lure us into war?
Because they're not just trying to stop shipping.
I think they're trying to lure us into war.
Wouldn't it make more sense to take out the leadership of Iran than the hoodies?
And I feel like Trump would put that on the table.
And I think it needs to be on the table at this point.
I think somebody says, you know, the last thing you want is a war with Iran, but we'll take out your leadership if you keep this up.
And then do it.
And then do it.
Because I don't think we could have a greater risk than we have now, because Iran is clearly willing to do lots of dangerous things to destroy everything in the Middle East, including us and Israel.
And under those conditions, The last thing I want is a war with Iran.
A war with Iran would have blowback in the homeland.
Shit would start blowing up in America really fast.
You wouldn't be able to travel in the inner cities for a while.
America would close down for a few months if Iran got taken out.
Because there are terrorist cells, I'm sure, here already.
I'm sure they're here and ready to activate without any orders.
They would just see that it's time to activate.
So, I don't think I want a war with any part of Iran's military, but dropping a mother of all bombs wherever their great leader is and just saying, we warned you.
But at the very least, we should warn them that that's what we plan to do.
Because I don't have a better plan.
What's a better plan than taking out the ayatollahs?
Do you have a better plan?
I don't know.
I don't think there's an economic way, because the countries that get any kind of economic sanctions, they just find ways around it.
Take out the oil?
Oh!
Oh, there you go.
Take out their entire oil industry.
Yeah, that's the way to go.
That's better.
That's better.
Yeah, we could actually, here's what I'd do.
I would make a target list of Iranian assets and match them one-to-one with Houthi missiles, or even the attacks on our proxies and the attack on our troops in the Middle East where they're stationed.
And I would say that the next missile is going to cost you this facility, the one after it is going to cost you this facility, and actually just give them a menu.
Say, here's your menu.
These are the things that are going to disappear in Iran and on this schedule.
And every time you send a Houthi missile at us, um, we're going to go down the menu to item number two and it's just going to fucking disappear.
All right.
Um, one head at a time.
This assumes they don't already have the bomb.
Hmm.
Yeah.
It does assume that.
But it also assumes that no matter what they're going to do with the bomb, Israel is going to destroy them once it's operational.
Because they have to.
Let's see.
A government that will not adhere to the Supreme Court will be left.
Okay.
Well, Trump was trying to bankrupt them, but it wasn't working because their facilities were still making and shipping oil.
Now, I assume that if we were to do something like that, take out their oil facilities, that their terrorists would take out our oil facilities and they would attack Israel directly and all that stuff.
