Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Jan. 27, 2024 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams

01:22:37

Episode 2366 CWSA 01/27/24

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: --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	- Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
	It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and you've never had a better time.
	But, if you'd like to take it up to a level that can barely be described with human language, all you need is a copper mug or a glass, a tankard, chalice, or stein, a canteen, sugar 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 dopamines of the day.
	The thing that makes everything better.
	It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
	Now go.
	So good.
	So good.
	Well, I'm going to start with some palate cleansers.
	Small little news bits that are kind of interesting.
	Then we'll get into the border and all the big stories and the politics and stuff.
	First, two science-y things from Brian Romali.
	He notes that scientists from some place in the UK, doesn't matter, they found a massive cosmic structure that's a giant, almost a perfect circle of galaxies and galaxy clusters that spans 1.3 billion light years in diameter.
	It's bigger than any known structure and in theory could not exist.
	We don't know anything about anything.
	Have you noticed that?
	Just when we think we know about, you know, the Big Bang or really anything.
	Turns out, nope.
	We don't know anything about anything.
	So I don't know why there would be a gigantic 1.3 billion light year perfect circle of galaxies and galaxy clusters.
	And apparently all of our theories can't explain that.
	So, wouldn't it be interesting if someday we find that there are aliens, but the aliens are like the size of planets?
	There's nothing that would preclude that, right?
	Couldn't the aliens be, you know, like a mile tall?
	Or is that impossible?
	Maybe it's impossible because of physics.
	Yeah, there's something.
	Well, but of course our physics assumes that it's like a humanoid body, you know, organic body.
	If it's not organic, if it's something else, maybe it could be so strong that it could be as big as King Kong.
	Wouldn't that be cool?
	Well, Brian also reports he's working on an app store that's open source for AI apps.
	Does that sound like a small story or a big story?
	That is a gigantic, potentially, story.
	Because right now, the apps that you have are kind of tied to your phone.
	And Apple's going to take... What does Apple take?
	30% of your profit from any app.
	But what's going to happen to the profitability of apps when you don't have to pay the phone provider for it?
	And how in the world can Apple survive as a company if there's an open source app store for AI and the AI prices come down to zero and you don't need all the fancy programming?
	Because we're very close to the phone.
	Here's what I think's going to happen.
	I've said this for a long time, but we finally have the technology to do it.
	Your phone should turn into a commodity.
	Right now it's a luxury good.
	But it should turn into a commodity that is nothing but a screen and Wi-Fi and, you know, a touchscreen.
	And maybe some Bluetooth.
	And that's about it.
	Cameras.
	But basically the processing should be some AI kind of thing where it's never the same each time you use it.
	You should be able to just talk to it or type on it and tell it what you want and it just figures out what you want as you go.
	So that's the future.
	And it could be good.
	Alright, here's a little life advice.
	This one will actually just change some lives.
	Most of you, not.
	Most of you will just say, oh, that's mildly interesting.
	But some of you are going to listen to this and it will completely change your experience for the rest of your life.
	Just a few of you.
	We'll see if it's one of you.
	It goes like this.
	It's a reframe.
	Did you ever have one of those days where you're not one of those people who maybe has clinical depression, but you just one day, you feel this overwhelming sense of depression and dread and hopelessness.
	Has anybody ever had that?
	And you're not, you're not a clinical depression person.
	It's just for whatever damn reason you wake up and, Oh my God, everything's bad today.
	Right?
	So I had one of those days the other day, But I have a reframe that I've used several times successfully, and I used it again successfully.
	And the reframe goes like this.
	I don't have depression.
	There's nothing extra wrong with the world.
	I have a dopamine shortage.
	As soon as I told myself it was a dopamine shortage, I knew exactly what to do about it.
	I was like, oh, dopamine.
	If it's a dopamine shortage, and it's not really about all the things in the world that I think it is, then I just go get some more dopamine.
	So I take my dog to the park, walk around in the sun, eat some food I like, make sure I'm hydrated.
	Boom.
	Problem solved.
	Problem solved.
	The moment you reframe it as a dopamine shortage, it gives you the menu of solutions.
	Oh, I know what gives me dopamine.
	I'll go get some sex, some exercise, eat right.
	Maybe I need to take a nap.
	But the moment you realize there's nothing wrong with the world, it's just a dopamine shortage, boom, solution.
	Watch how that changes your life.
	It sounds like a small thing, I know, but for maybe 10% of you, your entire world just changed.
	You're welcome.
	All right.
	I like to go back to this following topic a lot, but I saw Jocko Willink who said, quote in a podcast, I look at alcohol now, I've seen it destroy so many people, that I kind of look at it and go, man, I don't think people should drink.
	He's almost there.
	The number of, let's say, influencers who are saying directly alcohol is bad, is really increasing.
	If you haven't noticed, the number of people who other people listen to, who are in the, you know, self-improvement, or even just in the news, that say they don't drink at all, and it's not because they were alcoholics, they just kind of woke up one day and said, what the hell am I doing?
	So, So I think that the reframe alcohol is poison, which I like to put out there.
	It's sort of based on the alcohol is sugar theme.
	I'm sorry, that sugar is poison.
	So that came before alcohol is poison.
	But they both work as a reframe.
	Because once you think of it as poison instead of a beverage, It's pretty easy to avoid it.
	It's hard to avoid a beverage.
	If you're at a party and you know it'll make you feel more social and everything, here's a beverage.
	Oh, everybody's drinking a beverage.
	I'll have a beverage.
	Nope.
	It's poison.
	If somebody hands you a drink of poison, you don't say, well, everybody else is drinking it.
	Unless you're in Jonestown.
	All right, I've got another reframe for you.
	This one will really help you.
	You're all aware of the reframe that says, follow the money.
	And the idea is, if you're trying to figure out what's really going on in the world, or people you know, or politics, if you just see who's making money from whatever it is that's being proposed, you usually know exactly what's going to happen.
	So follow the money tends to be predictive.
	If the powerful people can make money off a thing, the thing is likely to happen.
	But, here's a reframe.
	Money, if you have enough to pay your essentials, let's say you have enough to eat and survive, money after that is basically a mating strategy.
	We don't always think of it that way, but it is entirely true that the more money you have, the more The more of a good mate you look like.
	We evolved that way.
	Now, it's mostly women see men with money, but it could work the other way, I suppose.
	So, here's the reframe.
	Follow the money is just another way to say follow the mating instinct.
	Because the money is really collected to improve your mating odds.
	We don't always think of it that way, but I always did.
	By the time I was probably five, I don't know, at least eight years old, I said to myself, wait a minute, I look in the mirror, And I see what I'm working with.
	Huh.
	I look at my face, I look at my body, my height, my probable hairline when I get older.
	My father was bald, my grandfather was bald.
	It's more on the woman's side, but my grandfather was bald, my uncle was bald on that side.
	So I knew I was going to be short and bald, and by fourth grade I knew I was going to wear glasses.
	And so I said to myself, my God, I don't have a chance of mating.
	I'm going to have to get really rich.
	Now you might say to yourself, Scott, you didn't actually have that conversation with yourself when you were eight years old.
	I'm going to look you in the eye.
	I will promise you I had that conversation with myself when I was eight years old.
	I definitely looked in the mirror and I said, I better get rich.
	Because I don't have a fucking chance.
	That's a true story.
	Now, I don't know that everybody has that same feeling.
	I still haven't made it.
	But at the subconscious level, I think you do.
	So, let me give you a little mental experiment to see what I mean.
	Imagine if you would, that all of our migrants who are forming this migrant crisis, the millions of migrants who are coming across the border.
	Suppose I told you that 95% of them were single women.
	And that they were all of reproductive age.
	And sure, I do know that some are terrorists.
	You know, the vast majority of them are just good people.
	But some percentage, way too many, are terrorists.
	Now you say to me, Scott, would you flow the illegal migration?
	And I'd say, wait, explain to me again who's coming in?
	Well, 95% Youngish women who, you know, from their country, there's no obesity, they seem pretty healthy, and they just want to come in here and mate.
	But, honestly, 5% of them are just maybe terrorists and criminals, so that's bad.
	Do you know what I would say?
	10 million?
	Hmm.
	That feels okay.
	It's only 10 million?
	And they're all young, reproductive-age women?
	Huh.
	That feels pretty good to me.
	But 5% are actually terrorists, Scott.
	Are you ignoring the 5% are terrorists?
	I go, huh.
	No, I'm incorporating that in my decision.
	Yeah.
	Now, am I kidding?
	Not really.
	Not really.
	Because I'm just being honest.
	A lot of these decisions are reproductive strategy decisions that we just don't realize that's what they are.
	Do you think it's a coincidence that the Democrat Party is 68% single women or whatever it is?
	It's not that, but most of the single women are Democrats.
	Do you think it's a coincidence that the Democrats, who are largely female and single, want a whole bunch of single, reproductive-age men to enter the country?
	I don't think so.
	And I don't think they think of it that way.
	I don't think anybody's saying, hmm, more people to mate with.
	Maybe some.
	But, no, I think follow the mating tells you what.
	Now, let's do an experiment.
	Let's look at Democrat versus Republican and see if follow the mating predicts everything you say.
	Let's take abortion.
	Big difference between Democrats and Republicans.
	I say that abortion is a female mating strategy.
	Do I need to explain that, or is that obvious to everybody?
	That abortion is a female mating strategy.
	Now you say to yourself, no Scott, that's the opposite.
	That's totally the opposite.
	Because they're not having a baby.
	That's the opposite of a strategy.
	Nope.
	No.
	Women are not in the business of having maximum babies.
	They're not in that business.
	Their mating strategy is to have the best babies.
	The best babies that they can take care of.
	So the best babies are not the ones that they are aborting.
	They're not saying, Oh, I got a guy who's going to stay with me.
	He's got lots of money.
	He's, he's attractive.
	He's got everything going for him.
	Uh, so I'm gonna, I'm not going to have his baby.
	No, it's usually cause the guy wasn't going to support him.
	They wouldn't, weren't interested in being with that guy.
	It's a filtering process.
	So aborting the baby is aborting the father.
	In effect, you're basically rejecting the father of the baby.
	Now some of it is economic, of course, but even the economic is related to the meeting.
	Give me any other topic that's different between men and women.
	Let's take Ukraine.
	Ukraine.
	Democrats seem to be more in favor of it than at least Republican voters, not Republican politicians.
	Oh, take gun control.
	Gun control.
	So women want fewer guns, but how is that connected to mating?
	Well, yeah, that one's a little different.
	Because you'd expect that they'd want to be around a man who could protect them, and they might be more likely to have guns.
	Yeah, does that make sense?
	Yeah, I guess that would be a mating strategy, to prefer to be around people who could protect you, that's kind of obvious.
	But, women don't like guns.
	At least, Democrat women.
	So, I'm not sure that guns are, guns are probably just not understandable in this situation.
	I think guns are a special case, because we treat it like guns are good or bad, but the reality is that guns definitely make some people safer, and they definitely make other people less safe.
	So imagining that we can agree on some average is ridiculous, because the people who need them need them, and the people who are less safe don't want them.
	That's never going to change.
	It shouldn't change.
	People should vote their self-interest.
	Your wife loves when you're packing.
	Anyway, follow the mating.
	All right, I believe it is inevitable, here's a prediction, that our future humanoid robots, maybe AI in general, is going to have to come in two different flavors.
	You're going to have a Republican robot and a Democrat robot.
	Does anybody disagree?
	Probably also male and female, that's true.
	But I think they're going to have to be Republican and Democrat, because if I let one of these in my house, I don't want it to be like a blue-haired, crazy... I don't want my robot to be the very people I try to avoid in real life.
	Yeah.
	And so, you know, likewise, if you're a Democrat, you don't want any damn Republican robot in your house.
	So since we're going to we're going to really, really want our robots to agree with us in, let's say, the big things, you know, the really big stuff, you know, not everything.
	But you want your robot to be basically on your same side for the big life things.
	So there will in fact have to be an option for your robot.
	Maybe flip a switch would be smarter.
	But a switch to make it Republican or Democrat.
	So that's my prediction that you'll have to do that because people will just demand it.
	Or they'll hack it themselves to make it that way.
	So, as I mentioned yesterday, I was trending like crazy.
	So I was trending between Hillary Clinton and E. Jean Carroll.
	So, that wasn't the best look.
	But I was trending.
	You know what's funny about that?
	I don't know why I was trending.
	I trended all day on the X platform.
	In other words, somebody thought I was the big story or one of the big stories.
	I don't know why.
	Did anybody else figure it out?
	I have a hypothesis.
	Because I told you that the paid trolls got instructions to come after me.
	And by the way, this is not a conspiracy theory weird thing I'm coming up with.
	We found out after the 2016 election that there were, in fact, literally, paid trolls.
	And that they would come after Republicans and they would get their marching orders.
	Go after this one or go after that one.
	And it looks like the order came to go after me.
	So I think I actually was trending because of the paid trolls.
	I think.
	Because they tended to mention my name when they did things.
	And the way you can tell that they're paid is they have a very common quality to them.
	They're weird little accounts.
	They don't have a lot of followers.
	Often they've been around for a while because the trolls have been using the same accounts for years.
	But they only emerge when it's election year.
	There's a group of people who only emerge when it's election year.
	By the way, I believe that there's a group of female Republicans who are also paid to interact on social media.
	There are a number of females that only get really active as Republicans when there's an election.
	And I think to myself, huh, they only really care in an election year.
	They get really, really active.
	I don't think those are organic.
	I think those are working for somebody.
	So the thing that the paid trolls do is they're trying to suck my soul out of me, as Tucker Carlson notes.
	They're not trying to change anybody's mind, so they don't give any arguments.
	They never talk about the content of the post when they come after you.
	In my case, it looks like they literally had a psychologist give them ideas of what would hurt me the most.
	It looks obvious that that's what's happening.
	So what they do is they come after me for having been recently divorced.
	Like that has anything to do with what I'm posting on X. And they have the same little saying, which is their tell, that's how you know it's artificial, is they say that I'm proving I'm the most divorced man in America.
	Now that is such a specific thing to say and has nothing to do with anything I'm ever talking about that you can tell it's just organized.
	So today it disappeared.
	So I was actually just buried with the same looking trolls yesterday and now they're just all gone.
	Yeah, none of it's real.
	Everything you think about that is exactly what it is.
	It's people like me who are getting We're getting targeted by Democrat operatives during an election year, and they're just trying to make me spend less time online.
	Because apparently, they decided I'm influencing people.
	Otherwise, they wouldn't care.
	Now, it would bother me, I suppose, if I didn't know it's artificial.
	But when it's artificial, and you can see the gears of the machine, it's so different than 2016.
	In 2016, we were guessing.
	In 2016, I was guessing.
	Huh.
	I wonder if YouTube is suppressing me.
	Well, I don't have to guess anymore.
	I don't have to wonder if these are paid trolls.
	Right?
	I don't have to wonder.
	All right.
	Here's something that Balaji Srinivasan said.
	If you're not following Balaji, you should.
	He starts out by saying that 68% of unmarried women are Democrats.
	And he says that the Democrats define themselves by their victimization rather than their aspirations.
	That Republicans have aspirations and Democrats have complaints about their victimhood.
	So it is sort of the victim party.
	I feel like we should start calling them the victim party.
	Because everything they do would agree with that label.
	But nobody wants to be the victim party.
	So the victim party.
	And I think what's the real problem with the Democrats is that men are not good at saying no to single women.
	Yeah, you can't say no to single women because you get all Karen.
	Here's what Candace Owens said on a podcast.
	She said recently, I would be terrified if I got onto a plane and I saw a woman flying the plane.
	Now you're going to say to yourself, hey, that's a sexist thing to say, isn't it?
	No, it isn't.
	It's not.
	That is not a sexist thing to say.
	It's a math thing to say.
	It doesn't say that women are worse pilots than men.
	She's not saying that.
	If that's what you see, you're not playing fair.
	She's very clearly saying, as part of the DEI, that the head of United said he was trying hard to get diversity.
	And if you try too hard to get diversity, you're going to be lowering your standards.
	If it's the only way you can get there.
	So what you worry about as a flyer is how much did they lower their standards, if at all, if at all, to get to their their quotas.
	Now, it's terribly unfair to be bigoted against, you know, a woman or a person of color if they're a pilot.
	Would you agree that that is bigoted?
	If you don't know anything about them personally, but you say, oh, there's a black pilot, or a woman pilot, it must be a DEI thing.
	It's very bigoted, wouldn't you say?
	Of course it is.
	Yeah.
	It's discrimination, it's bigotry.
	However, it is completely moral and ethical to do so.
	Because that form of bigotry in this specific case is for self-defense.
	So Candace is saying specifically, I'd be afraid of dying.
	Now, if you're protecting yourself physically or your family in self-defense, bigotry is not only allowed, it's recommended.
	It's not just allowed, it's recommended.
	Because bigotry often will get you a better answer than, you know, wokeness when it comes to your physical safety.
	So, bigotry, to remind you, is, in other domains, when you get outside of self-defense, you know, staying alive, if you're looking at, you know, business or personal life or all that, Then the bigotry is immoral and often illegal and it's not good for the world.
	So that should be disavowed entirely, as Trump likes to say.
	But, backing Candace, if she has a feeling that DEI has influenced the quality of her pilots, then bigotry is not only allowed, it's completely moral, ethical, legal, And yes, she can say it right in public that she's using this standard.
	And again, the bigotry is not based on being a man or being black or any of that.
	It's based on the assumption that the DEI process would drive them to lower quality candidates.
	Not that those people are lower quality in general.
	All right.
	Vermont proved that nobody in Vermont can do math or understand economics.
	So they're looking at legislation that would tax wealth.
	Everything over $10 million you'd be taxed on if it went up in value, even if you didn't realize the value.
	That's right.
	Listen to this.
	If you had assets over $10 million, let's say you were worth $20 million, the $10 million that's over the 10 If that 10 million's in stocks, and the value of your stocks go up 20%, you have to pay taxes on the gain.
	Now, if next year those same stocks go down 20%, you get your money back.
	No, I'm just kidding.
	I'm just kidding.
	You don't get your money back!
	No, no, they just keep your money.
	Yeah, no, it's stupid.
	There are some bills and plans that you could say, huh, they have different priorities.
	No, that's not what's going on here.
	No, this is just stupid.
	What rich person is going to stay in Vermont?
	Vermont is not exactly the place you just have to live in.
	It's sort of an optional place to live.
	The people who are paying most of the taxes are the rich.
	The high-income people.
	The rich are going to move out of there as fast as they can.
	There's no way I would live in Vermont.
	Vermont is completely off the list of places to move to.
	I'd never open a business there, because what if my business becomes worth more than $10 million?
	It would be the wrong state to have a business.
	And if you don't think your business could be worth more than $10 million, well, it's a small business.
	Yeah.
	So I would say that 80% of their taxpayer base would leave under those conditions if they could go to a state that doesn't have that.
	All right, in simulation news, has anybody noticed that the rate of coincidence seems to be increasing?
	Has anybody noticed that?
	It's just more coincidences.
	I don't know if it's real.
	It just feels like there's more coincidence.
	But here's a weird one.
	So yesterday afternoon, I spent a bunch of time researching Toyota Tacoma trucks, specifically the Tacoma.
	Now, I'm just trying to figure out some kind of vehicle, my next vehicle.
	By the way, what do you think?
	Does a Toyota Tacoma make sense for me and my age and who I am?
	Does that make sense for me?
	I feel like it fits.
	Like I'm ready for an old man truck.
	I always wanted a grandpa truck, you know, when I reached a certain age.
	So it's, you know, I just feel like a truck is exactly what I'm supposed to be in.
	But I want to be able to park it, you know, I don't want the wide truck.
	The wide truck's a pain in the ass because you can't park it as easily in as many places.
	Anyway, but that has nothing to do with anything.
	So I spend the afternoon looking at Tacoma trucks, and then when I'm done I say, I think I'm gonna watch, see if anything's on Netflix.
	And I turn on Netflix, and the home page, the one that comes up when you first open it, was for a new series called Tacoma.
	About some firefighters.
	Now, that was pretty weird, but just a coincidence.
	However, I recommend the show.
	It's actually a really, really funny show.
	Here's another one.
	The leader, the new leader of Poland, his name is Donald Tusk.
	Donald Tusk.
	All day long, we talk about Donald Trump and Elon Musk.
	And then the head of Poland is Donald Tusk.
	There's just something weird about that.
	All right, well, that's enough of that.
	Florida is considering a ban on social media for people under 16.
	So it hasn't passed.
	Yeah, I guess it went through the House of Representatives in Florida, but still has not been heard in the state Senate.
	I don't think it'll get passed, but maybe it will.
	Because Florida is such an outlier in terms of doing Republican stuff.
	So maybe they will.
	But what would you think if you were a parent and your child was using something every day that the state of Florida, having seriously looked into it and being concerned about the health of children, said it's so dangerous that it should be illegal.
	And your kid's using it.
	That would be like, you know, all the states say cocaine is illegal for children, but your kid's using cocaine.
	You're like, ah, this should work out.
	I don't know.
	Yeah, I don't know if it'll make any difference or if it's going anywhere.
	I think TikTok probably has enough money to kill this.
	We'll see.
	If you didn't hear the reason that Tim Poole pulled one or two shows, there might have been two of them, he had guests on, they were making references to killing people, and that's not cool on podcasts.
	So, I kind of agree with Tim Poole.
	He basically cost himself a lot of money.
	I would guess that Tim Poole probably makes a few thousand dollars per video.
	So for him to pull his video, first of all it's smart because he could lose his whole channel, but it's responsible.
	That's good responsible behavior.
	So yeah, and then it got attention indirectly.
	So good work for Tim Poole just being a responsible citizen and managing his business model correctly.
	I think he nailed it.
	And you could disagree whether, you know, whether he went too far, but it's not your call.
	The only decision, it's just his call.
	And to me, it looks like he made the right call.
	And it made a point.
	It also made a point for his future guests.
	So all good.
	I think he comes out ahead.
	Well, apparently Christopher Wray is being accused of hollowing out the FBI with a bunch of DEI hires.
	So a bunch of, let's see, there's a report by an alliance of retired and active duty agents.
	who say basically the new recruits are lower quality because the requirements for being in the FBI were lowered so that they can improve their diversity through DEI.
	So these critics who are current and past FBI people say that Christopher Wray has degraded the recruitment standards in all areas, including physical fitness, illicit drug use, financial irregularities, mental health.
	full-time work experience and integrity.
	industry.
	So that basically the FBI is just a woke nightmare at this point.
	So, if you hear that FBI is being hollowed out by DEI, Do you think that Vivek is right, you can get rid of 75% of them without hurting your effectiveness?
	I do.
	I actually believe, once I hear about the DEI stuff, I go, oh yeah, anybody who's doing massive DEI, you can fire 75% of them.
	I think that was the story with Twitter.
	If you find that much wokeness, you can fire 75% of them.
	There should be a rule about that.
	If you have a DEI group, you can fire 75% of everybody and you could break even in terms of productivity.
	It'd be about the same.
	Just be cheaper.
	Well, the FBI is probably going to find that out.
	In Hunter Biden news, I guess Hunter Biden's associate Rob Walker has now testified under oath that Hunter Biden's work for the Chinese energy company CFC began while Joe Biden was still president and vice president in 2015.
	So let's add that to the list of everything you suspected was true was exactly like it looked like.
	Hunter Biden was taking money from a Chinese energy company while his father was Vice President of the United States.
	Yeah, and his name is Rob.
	His partner's name is Rob.
	That is funny.
	So, that's exactly what it looks like.
	Here's another exactly what it looks like.
	What were the odds that in an election year where Biden needs to get reelected, who could have predicted that yesterday there would be a post by Paul Krugman, famous Democrat-leading economist, who would say this?
	So, 2023 was a miraculous year for the economy.
	High growth with inflation falling all the way back to the Fed's target, rising real wages, and here, according to YouGov, Is how the Republicans saw it.
	Then he says the Republicans see it as bad news.
	Kyle Bass weighed into that and said the great illusion of the self-congratulatory academics is how they chain weight inflation.
	In other words, they're calculating in a stupid way.
	The real number is over 40% in the last three years combined.
	So if you took all the inflation that's cumulatively piled up, that's what you need to look at, not what happened more recently.
	So there are a few things to learn here.
	Number one, all economic numbers are made up.
	Add that to all war-related data is made up, and all economy-related data is made up, especially in the election year.
	You could guarantee In fact, I literally had a conversation with my stepdaughter.
	I said, election year coming.
	The government always juices the numbers, so it looks better than it is if they want the incumbent to get reelected.
	And sure enough, right on time, exactly when you predicted, the top Democrat name in economics says, my God, it was a miraculous year that Joe Biden really nailed it.
	And would you expect other people to disagree with his assessment?
	Of course.
	Because all of our data is fake, and all of our pundits are lying.
	Okay, maybe not all of them.
	Most of them.
	How about another one for what you suspected was exactly true?
	And we'll add this to the Trump Was Right pile.
	Joel Pollack was pointing this out in the Trump Was Right.
	So there's a UN group called UNRWA, U-N-R-W-A, that stands for UN Relief and Works Agency.
	But basically, it's specifically to help refugees from the Palestine areas, as they would call it.
	And Trump, thinking this was a sketchy organization, pulled funding from them.
	Joe Biden said, oh, Trump pulled their funding.
	I'm going to give it right back and gave them back their funding.
	So how did that work out once they got funded?
	Let's see.
	Checking, checking an update for funding.
	Oh, OK.
	Here's an update.
	The State Department has temporarily paused additional funding for allegations that 12 of the agency's employees were involved in the Hamas attack on October 7th.
	Wait, what?
	Has Trump ever been more right than that?
	I mean, he was right on the border.
	He was right on a lot of stuff.
	But I don't think he's ever been more right than this.
	So Biden gave funding back to the people who helped plan October 7th.
	And now Biden is saying, um, you know, maybe we should reduce that funding a little bit, maybe a little bit less funding for the terrorist planners.
	Yeah.
	So I finally figured out why, um, Trump is considered on the right and the Democrats are considered on the left.
	I hadn't figured it out.
	It's because Trump is always right.
	And if you take all the opinions that people have and you remove from them the ones that are right, you know, the Trump opinions, the ones that are right, then the opinions that are wrong would be what?
	They would be what's left.
	So if you take out, if you remove from the subset of all opinions the ones that are right, then the ones that you haven't removed are the ones that are left.
	So that's why it's called right and left.
	Because some are right and the others are what's left.
	All right.
	Oh, here's a big surprise.
	You might be surprised to know that there's a CIA whistleblower who alleges that the CIA offered to pay off independent analysts to change their positions on whether the COVID-19 lab leak theory was valid.
	So, we don't have confirmation of that, it's just a whistleblower.
	But a whistleblower, according to Rand Paul, who's taking us seriously, and he's a serious person who's a credit to the country.
	Even when I don't agree with him, he's still a credit to the country, Rand Paul, because he's consistent, and he's not a damn hypocrite.
	And he's actually trying to help the country.
	In everything he does, it's just obvious he's just trying to make things work.
	So, I love me some Rand Paul.
	But yeah, it's a good thing he's looking into this.
	So Rand Paul, he might have been right.
	About everything in the pandemic and Fauci.
	Because he's on the right, and when you remove those opinions, well, that's what's left.
	All right, let's talk about the Eugene Carroll corruption of justice.
	So there's a result in the lawsuit where Eugene Carroll was suing Trump for defamation, because Trump called her a liar and whatnot.
	So, the court has decided that Trump should pay her $83.3 million dollars.
	So, does that feel like justice has been served?
	Or does it feel like the courts are completely broken in some jurisdictions?
	And that as soon as Trump's name comes up, there isn't a chance he gets a good trial.
	Now, I don't think he's going to ever pay this money.
	Seems like there's something you could do to make this go away, some legal process.
	But John Lefebvre does a good job of summarizing what you didn't know about this trial.
	All right, now I knew a few of these things, but when you see them all in the list, oh my god!
	So let me read what John Lefebvre summarizes.
	He says, I thought everyone knew the E. Jean Carroll v. Trump case was bogus until I heard my mother's late 60s Republican uninformed take on the verdict after watching ABC Nightly News.
	Oh, big surprise.
	Somebody watched ABC Nightly News and was misinformed on a news story.
	Wow, didn't see that coming.
	All right, so here's the better take on it.
	He says it's hard to find on Google, so here's what you need to know.
	About the case, most of which was deemed inadmissible by the judge.
	Number one, she couldn't recall the date, month, season, or year the incident happened.
	The incident where she alleges that Trump pushed her into a restroom or changing room, I guess a changing area, and sexually touched her.
	So she didn't even know the season or the year.
	She never told anyone about it, so at the time that it allegedly happened, there was no... That's the part I thought actually did happen.
	So give me a fact check.
	Do I just have a false memory?
	Because I thought in a case like this, unless they had told somebody that they knew at the time it happened, I thought that these cases never go anywhere.
	Like if you don't have a witness that you were talking about it when it happened, that's almost a guarantee that nobody can do anything with it from a legal perspective.
	Because that is just what you said happened a hundred years ago.
	And that's not enough.
	But according to Lefebvre, she never told anybody about it, so the court case didn't present that.
	Yeah, she also tweeted that her favorite show was the, well, we'll get that, was The Apprentice.
	That's actually on the list.
	The dress she claims to have been wearing didn't exist at the time.
	The dress she claimed to be wearing didn't exist.
	Her description of the dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman was inaccurate, making her sequence of events impossible.
	Her lawsuit was bankrolled by Jeffrey Epstein, pal and Democrat, and Nikki Haley, mega donor, Reid Hoffman.
	Democrats created a law, the Adult Survivors Act in 2022, to enable her lawsuit to proceed because the statute of limitations had run out.
	And coincidentally, New York created a law that had the effect of making this specific case pursuable.
	Now, do you think they made that law just because of Trump?
	Well, they would say no, but probably.
	Her accusation is the exact plotline of an episode of Law & Order, one of her favorite shows.
	Now, if anybody has a link to that that you could send me somewhere, I'd love to watch the show.
	I don't know.
	I'd have to see it myself to say that the plotline is exact.
	Maybe it just reminds you of it, which wouldn't be good enough.
	But it's certainly part of the story.
	And we're not even to the good stuff yet.
	Trump's Apprentice was her favorite show, one of her favorite shows.
	Do you think if you get sexually abused, the abuser's TV show is one of your favorite shows?
	It's basically impossible.
	That's my understanding of human beings.
	My understanding of human beings is that would be literally impossible.
	But who knows?
	Well, I don't think we can know that anything is a false accusation.
	men of rape, including Les Moonves.
	Well, I don't think we can know that anything is a false accusation.
	We can know that she didn't prove it.
	And I think Les Moonves has been accused of quite a few things.
	I don't know if he's ever been proven, but have I ever told you that 100% of public figures get accused of things just like this?
	I've been accused of like massive rape by a person I never met.
	Somebody who lives in Canada.
	I definitely have never met them.
	Yeah, there's somebody who calls up the people I work with every few years to tell them that I go to Canada to rape her on a regular basis.
	That's a real thing.
	And by the way, not the only one.
	Do you think it's the only one?
	No.
	Oh, by the way, while I'm here, let me say something.
	There is an imposter, somebody pretending to be me, Who is apparently getting a number of single, lonely women to believe that I am in a relationship with them.
	And a few of them have showed up at my house, right?
	A few of them have showed up at my house because they believe they've been in a long-term digital relationship with me and that I invited them to live the rest of their lives.
	So they've showed up with baggage, like actually luggage, to actually move into my house.
	And I open the door and I say, hello?
	And they say, I'm here.
	Do you know who I am?
	And I have to say, I'm sorry, I don't.
	And then when I find out, I have to explain to them it's not the first time.
	So it's really tough to hear that you've been in a romantic relationship for a year that wasn't even real.
	So, and then there are also some number of people Who believe I'm sending them secret signals through the live stream, and that it's part of our relationship.
	You know, I'm confirming things we talked about and things like that.
	That's not happening.
	Right?
	Or let me put it this way.
	If you don't know my phone number, I'm not saying secret things to you on my live stream.
	But there are a few people who know me well enough that they know my phone number.
	And in some cases, I do say things that are like little Easter eggs just for the people I know.
	But no, there's nobody who I have a secret, you know, gonna marry them relationship that doesn't have my phone number.
	Yeah, if you don't have my phone number, I'm not in a relationship with you.
	All right.
	Just put that out there as a public service because it's a pretty big problem.
	More about Eugene Carroll, the accuser of Trump.
	She told Anderson Cooper most people think of rape as being sexy.
	OK, that's a little out of context, though.
	And she made a career promoting promiscuity, but I don't think that's in her cat's name is vagina.
	But I don't think that's You know, here I think I would side with Eugene.
	Those are not the things that you should be bringing up in court.
	Because everybody's, you know, most adults are sexual creatures.
	So, you know, I don't really care that her cat is named Vagina, except that it's hilarious.
	All right.
	But I hope she doesn't let the cat outdoors, because if she lets that cat outdoors, could be a mountain lion.
	It would eat her vagina.
	Anyway, Mike Benton thinks that we need a sanctuary state to shield Republicans from the lawfare.
	He's not wrong.
	I feel like there should be a state you could move to when you're falsely accused by another state.
	Like, literally.
	Literally.
	No hyperbole.
	No joke.
	We might actually need a state that would protect people if they move there to get away from obviously malignant, you know, prosecution.
	I mean, if Florida could do it, I don't think they could do it and it wouldn't make sense in his case.
	But if they can say to Trump, look, as long as you stay in the state, you're fine.
	You know, we won't let them get to you.
	We need a sanctuary state for Republicans.
	Like, honest to God, we need it.
	Really, really need it.
	All right, or we should get rid of all the sanctuary cities.
	That would be the other way to go.
	All right, keep in mind that E. Jean Carroll won her civil lawsuit against Trump after losing the criminal one.
	The criminal one is where you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the event even happened.
	She was not able to prove to a jury that the event, or a judge, I don't know, that the event happened.
	Doesn't mean it didn't happen.
	It just means she was unable to prove it happened.
	So how do you prove that Trump defamed her.
	If you can't prove that the event happened, then Trump calling her a liar for saying it happened, wouldn't you have to prove that it did happen in order to know that Trump was defaming her versus accurately describing her?
	It's ridiculous.
	So, I can give you 10 more minutes of why this ruling is clearly, you know, nothing even close to justice.
	It's just a crazy punishment on Trump.
	Yeah, it's just crazy.
	You know, it's a... it's a Democrat judge.
	It's the whole... it's everything you think it is.
	Every wrong thing you think, yeah, it's just what you thought it was.
	But it's... alright, here's a prediction.
	My prediction is, since Reid Hoffman was backing Nikki Haley, and that makes him sort of a, you could say he's an enemy to the Republicans.
	But Republicans do have a little bit of honor.
	Not every one of them.
	But I think that as long as somebody is transparently funding a candidate in an open election in our democratic republic, that even if you hate it, He is an American, and as an American he gets to do American things, and if they're legal, such as funding a candidate, even if it's for a sketchy reason because he's funding the other party, etc., it's all transparent, and therefore legal.
	Well, not therefore, but it is also illegal.
	So I don't think that anybody's going to try to target Reid Hoffman for destruction because he's on the other team, although we do a lot of that, too much of it.
	He was also allegedly the main funder behind this lawsuit, which means paying the lawyers, I assume.
	Now, do you consider this a legitimate attack on Trump?
	Well, I suppose it depends if you think that the act actually happened.
	Or, alternately, if you think that it was proven substantially enough that the legal system should act on it.
	Here's what I see, and I don't know if anybody else sees it, and I want to be really careful how I talk about it.
	Because I don't recommend or even approve of going after an American in any sketchy way.
	Like, I don't think we should be at each other's throats about stuff.
	However, let me put my notes down for a moment and speak to you as a human adult male.
	As a human adult male, you can sense when the line has been crossed.
	Adult males, can you give me a little... Can you confirm?
	This E.G.
	and Carol stuff, now that we know how it turned out, this crossed the line.
	This is not like funding Nikki Haley, which is kind of a clever, dirty trick, but it's transparent, it's legal, he's an American citizen involved in politics.
	Perfectly legitimate, even if you hate it, it's legitimate.
	But funding this lawsuit, now that you know the details, does that feel like that was part of the normal process?
	Does that feel like he was just in the game like everybody else and he played the rules of the game?
	I'm going to say that he increased the size of the field.
	And he just made it completely acceptable for the Republicans to destroy his life.
	Now, I don't recommend it.
	I actually like Reid Hoffman.
	I've met him.
	He's actually, he was very kind, very generous to me, and I like him.
	So I wouldn't want to see anything bad happen to him.
	So on a personal level, I don't want to think that, you know, don't do anything bad to Reid Hoffman.
	However, it's not up to me.
	And if I were observing this from the outside and predicting, probably the hit has already been ordered.
	At some deep level in the Republican Party, where the naughtiest members live, I'm pretty sure the order just went out to destroy his life.
	So my prediction is that Reid Hoffman is going to be the subject of maybe false accusations, but it's going to get really dark.
	And I also think that there is a principle of mutually assured destruction, which is a necessity for civilization to function.
	Meaning that it doesn't matter if the law says you can't, you know, do something terrible to my family.
	If you do, I'm gonna kill ya.
	Right?
	Mutually assured destruction if I can find you.
	So, sometimes the law can handle stuff.
	And in this case, the law was completely incapable and made things worse, it looks like.
	But, am I wrong?
	Let me just check my assumptions.
	Doesn't it seem like he crossed the line?
	And again, I don't want anybody to get hurt.
	I don't like fake rumors.
	I don't like fake stories about anybody.
	I don't like any of that.
	But you would be naive if you don't think the kill order has already been given.
	I mean, there are Republicans who work in the dirty tricks domain that are already pouring through his garbage cans right now.
	If anybody, female or male, has ever made an accusation against him, you're going to find out in the next 30 days.
	It's going to get really fucking ugly.
	So, Reid, you have opened up a new domain, and I think that the Republicans have a free punch.
	So if you're hiding anything, they're definitely going to find it.
	And if you're not hiding anything, they might find that too.
	So it doesn't mean that they're going to play fair.
	Because keep in mind, the accusation was that he didn't play fair.
	If you don't play fair, and that's what your opponent thinks, they're not going to play fair.
	So basically, all controls have been removed from Republicans when it comes to this one individual.
	Yeah.
	So, I hate that that's going to happen to him, but I also like mutually assured destruction because it does keep society humming along.
	Andrew Cuomo has been accused of subjecting 13 women to sexually hostile stuff in the office.
	Turley gives him I like how Turley is approaching this.
	So the question is not whether he did or did not do these things, because we don't know.
	We weren't there.
	The question is, apparently the government has decided that without proof, you know, without a trial that really gets to the factual part of it, that they're just going to accuse him of being this horrible person and smear him in public and, I don't know.
	So I guess Kristen Clark, the assistant attorney general in the agency's civil rights division, declared that the conduct in the executive chamber, blah, blah, blah, under the former governor, was especially egregious because of the stark power differential and the victims and blah, blah, blah.
	And the problem here is that he's convicted without a trial.
	So basically, the government has said, you did 13 horrible sex-related things, and where's his defense?
	Where's the part where he gets to say it didn't happen, or you don't understand, or it was consensual?
	Now, I don't know if it was, so I can neither defend him nor condemn him, because who knows?
	Yeah, yeah, this is very wrong.
	So the fact that he happens to be a Democrat shouldn't, and internally is, you know, handling this the correct way, it shouldn't matter what party he's in.
	If this happened to a Republican, you'd be squeaking a lot.
	You know, if you're a Republican.
	This just happened to happen to a Democrat.
	So, did he do bad things?
	I don't know.
	I don't know.
	I just know that the process that they put him through is not an American process.
	The American process is you get to face your accusers, have your day in court, or at least get to tell your side of things.
	Here's some numbers, well, how many of you think that the January 6th Committee should be arrested and jailed?
	Yeah, because again, the January 6th Committee did not do a government function in a government way, in a transparent way, in an honorable and legal way.
	If they had done that, and I just didn't like the outcome, I'd say, oh, vote him out of office.
	Vote him out.
	But to me, it looks like, based on what we know today, especially the information they deleted, and having watched the whole thing live, that it was just an op.
	And if it's an op, in other words, a managed, planned, coordinated attempt to take the President of the United States out of office, On bullshit, then that should be some kind of RICO or organized crime thing.
	I would think they should all be jailed.
	Do you agree?
	Now obviously, and we just talked about Cuomo, I don't want them jailed just because I have suspicions.
	That's not good enough.
	Yeah, I don't want any kind of a, you know, witch hunt on top of a witch hunt.
	It has to be a legal process.
	It has to be transparent.
	It has to be ethical and, you know, done right.
	But to me, it's pretty obvious this was a major criminal act against the United States and against the citizens.
	And that would be the first thing I would want after the border gets closed.
	The first thing I would want from a Trump administration, should it happen, would be to announce charges against the people on the committee.
	And at least make them defend themselves.
	You know, if they have a defense, I'm willing to listen.
	But to me it looks like as an American citizen what they did was a crime at a level that sometimes there's execution as a, you know, if it looked like treason it would be execution would be on the, at least on your mind.
	I don't think they should be executed.
	Maybe they need to be in jail.
	Based on what we can observe, it looks like a horrible crime was done.
	Now, the reason I'm treating this as worse than other things, you know, because the government does a lot of bad things, it does appear That they intentionally created a narrative that would jail hundreds of Americans who shouldn't have been jailed.
	It's one thing if the public goes after a political person.
	Maybe they break the law when they're doing it.
	Maybe they act unethically.
	So going after a political person feels completely different.
	Because I think that in order to get this political person, they took out maybe hundreds of American just citizens.
	And that cannot go unaddressed.
	I'm not sure I would want them to be put in jail just for what they did to Trump.
	That doesn't feel like enough.
	But if they put hundreds of Americans in jail just to get at Trump, they need to be in jail.
	They need to be in jail for that.
	And I think the people who are still rotting in jail right now from January 6th are all the, it's all the argument you need.
	The people who put them there unjustly are the ones who should be there.
	All right, how many people do you think are active military people in the United States today?
	It's about 1.3 million active service members.
	Of our active service members, about what percent do you think are combat types, as opposed to support and everything else?
	About 20%.
	Oh, you knew the number.
	Yeah, it's about 20%.
	Could be under.
	And then we've got 900,000 reserves and probably the same ratio of combat ready.
	So, let's see, that would be 20% of 2.3, 460,000.
	Did I do that right?
	Combat people.
	Now, how many of the combat troops are already overseas?
	How many are overseas?
	Half?
	I have no idea.
	80%?
	20%?
	Maybe half?
	150,000.
	Okay, if it was 150,000, that might be like a quarter or something.
	All right, so that's how many people we have in the military.
	And let's compare that to, all right, how many military served in Vietnam War?
	This would be the combat people plus anybody who was over there.
	Vietnam War American service was 2.7 million.
	Now that's not all at the same time.
	That includes the people flowing through and flowing out.
	But at one point 2.7 million, well not at one point, cumulatively 2.7 million Americans in Vietnam War.
	How many military-age men have come across the border under Biden's administration?
	Probably over 10 million.
	We don't know the exact number because we don't know the getaways.
	But probably over 10 million.
	Now, 10 million military age fit people, largely, at least many of them, from countries that are not our best friends.
	What kind of a level of risk does that look like?
	CBP says 300,000 of them came over just in December.
	The number of able-bodied men that came over in December is kind of close to the total number of combat troops we have.
	Let me say it again.
	The number of illegal migrants of military age, men, who came across the border just in December approaches the total number of military people we have for combat.
	Now, to be fair, a small group of combat-ready people could beat a pretty big group of under-armed migrants who came over and started trouble.
	So numbers don't tell the whole story.
	Close to the point where you could get overwhelmed.
	And if they did a October 7th kind of Hamas attack, if they just said, look, we got a thousand people now, we've got a thousand people in 20 big cities.
	And those thousand people spread over 20 cities are all going to activate at the same time.
	And I'm not going to give them any ideas, but if you told me I had to destroy a city, I could do it myself.
	So if you had like dozens of people working on it, You could take down the top 20 cities in the United States in one day.
	You could make them unlivable in one day.
	And again, I'm not going to give you ideas.
	They'll have to do that themselves.
	So that's the risk we have.
	And that's what we let into the country.
	So I saw some footage yesterday.
	Do you remember that Brad Pitt movie, World War Z?
	And there's a famous scene where it's CGI, but there's like thousands of zombies trying to climb over this high wall.
	Well, I saw that clip as a meme yesterday, and I thought, oh, I knew this was gonna happen.
	You know, sooner or later, somebody's gonna do those World War Z video clips, and they're gonna put that in a story about immigration.
	And then I looked at it closer.
	It wasn't a World War Z movie clip.
	It was actual video of swarming of this wall.
	It was actual video.
	And I'm not joking.
	I legitimately thought it was from the World War Z, because I didn't think in the real world we'd ever see anything like it.
	Yeah, it was crazy.
	So, as Elon Musk and David Sachs and everybody smart has said, it's obvious that the policy is for an open border.
	You can't say it's an accident.
	And none of this looks like an accident.
	But, so what's going on with Texas?
	So Texas is holding tough.
	There's a little bit of fog of war about what the Biden administration is or is not doing about it.
	So some say that the Border Patrol decided they wouldn't cut the wire, but I don't think that's confirmed.
	I just know that they haven't.
	But they might.
	I think everybody understands now that even if the government did cut the wire, that Texas said, Dan Patrick said specifically, yeah, we'll just put it right back.
	And there's nothing illegal about that.
	So probably the Border Patrol is not gonna waste their time cutting the wire if Texas is literally standing behind them with another bale of wire, which is what exactly they should do, right?
	If the Border Patrol cuts them, you should stand right behind them and show them that all of their energy and time is a complete waste, because as soon as you walk away, I'm gonna put this back.
	And then do it.
	So I don't think the Border Patrol has any reason to actually remove any wire, because if they're smart, they'll just let the political legal process work its way out.
	Then you can decide what wire goes where.
	So, but Biden also paused some approvals on a bunch of, you know, liquid gas export terminals that included Texas.
	Some say the timing suggests they did it because they want to punish Texas.
	Some say it affects other states and they were going to do it anyway.
	It's a climate change thing.
	In our current situation, I don't assume coincidence.
	Possible, but I don't assume coincidence in these cases Yeah, and I guess Biden sold a bunch of our helium Our helium reserves, but I'm not sure that's a real story.
	I'll get back to that so Here's what the new border The border legislation that's being considered, this is what it would do.
	So basically it would make it legal for massive amounts of non-citizens to come across the border of 5,000 a day.
	That's just the ones you see.
	So there could still be like massive getaways and people who you don't see come across, so that's not part of this.
	But if they count to 5,000, then after that number they'd start getting tough and trying to stop them.
	It's the dumbest idea I've ever heard.
	It's just the dumbest idea.
	But the shutdown also takes effect if there are more than 8,500 migrant encounters in a single day.
	Oh, so that would count encounters, but it wouldn't count anybody who just got through and nobody saw them.
	All right, so it's basically, it's a plan not to stop immigration.
	It's a plan to guarantee there's lots of it, just not quite as much as there is now.
	So it's a ridiculous, stupid plan that nobody should approve, and it doesn't even look like it's real.
	I mean, it looks like it was just done for political reasons, it's so bad.
	But there are some good points of it you would keep, which is what makes it a good poison pill.
	So the reason it's a poison pill is they'll put a few things in there that look good, and you're like, oh!
	Here's a thing where a migrant caught trying to cross twice during the shutdown phase would be banned from entering for one year.
	And you think, oh, well, maybe that's good.
	But I think some of these things that you would agree with that are put in there are just so it looks like there are a few things that are not crazy.
	The crazy part is that we're going to allow illegal immigration at a level that would be a serious problem.
	Why?
	And of course, there's nothing in here about mass deportation, which I think has to be part of it at this point.
	All right.
	There's a trucker convoy that's heading down to the border.
	I guess it's mostly American truckers, but maybe some Canadians will join in.
	And that should be January 29th for a few days.
	I'm not sure I recommend this, because they're gonna get January 6th.
	I mean, their names will be collected, they will be abused like the Canadian truckers were, and I don't think it would make a difference.
	If it would make a difference, I'd feel differently, but I don't feel like the trucks or lack of trucks would make a difference.
	Because I think the trucks make sense when you're blocking traffic, and people say, oh, I'll do anything to make this But if you're just driving around the unpopulated border areas, is that going to make a difference?
	To me, it looks like it could be a trick to trick a bunch of people into acting out too hard and getting arrested.
	I don't trust any of that.
	Well, meanwhile, the U.S.
	carried out another strike in Yemen because the Houthis were getting ready, they say, to launch another attack.
	What the hell are we going to do about Yemen?
	I feel like Yemen has no solution.
	Yeah.
	But the one thing that I would do probably, correct me if I'm wrong, didn't we work really hard to stop Saudi Arabia from doing atrocities in Yemen?
	Because the Saudis wanted to attack the Houthis because they were being supported by Iran, right?
	Don't you think the best thing we could do is say, you know what, Saudi, do whatever you want.
	Do whatever you want.
	Why don't we just let the Saudis take care of it?
	I mean, they would literally be beheading them in a public square.
	It's just not our problem.
	Our problem is we don't want the ships to be hit with missiles.
	The Houthis' problem is that the Saudis will behead every one of them if they get a chance.
	That's their problem.
	Let's not make our problem, you know, let's not make our problem confused with the Houthis' problem.
	The Houthis have a problem that they have a neighbor that is willing to seriously kill them.
	And I say we let the Saudis do whatever they want.
	Free pass.
	One more missile and we just unload and say, look, Saudi Arabia will even give you logistical support.
	You just kill them all.
	Because at this point, what the hell are you going to do?
	Well, I mean, what's the option?
	You're not going to let them close down shipping.
	If you let them close down shipping, somebody is going to do more of that.
	You have to actually just devastate an enemy that's doing that at whatever the cost.
	Will there be civilian deaths?
	Of course, because it will be war.
	But you have to do it anyway.
	Did I miss any big stories?
	My prediction on the border was that the federal government would back down because we've now assembled enough muscle and political will that the federal government, they know, they've gamed it out in their heads.
	They know they can't win this.
	So, I think we're seeing a reassertion of male power.
	And that people are willing to say out loud now, and I think I helped with that, that women are the wrong choice for protecting the border.
	Doesn't mean every woman, of course, and it doesn't mean every man would be good at it.
	It does mean that men are biologically suited for keeping the other men away from their women.
	The men in the United States are looking at all these competitors coming in, the men, and saying, I will stop that.
	You know, let's do less of that.
	So yeah, I think men will eventually get this done.
	I don't think there will be a shooting civil war.
	I see almost no chance of that.
	Unless it's just like a crazy person in one place or something.
	But not in any kind of general civil war way.
	All we really needed was for men to reassert themselves.
	The part that was missing is that the men were too afraid to raise their heads and say what was obvious and true and needed to be done.
	But I think men at this point have said, okay, we're going to do what's obvious and true and needs to be done.
	What if it's really expensive and people get mad at you?
	Doesn't matter now.
	You know, before you could say to yourself, you know, I don't like this immigration, but it's not so bad that I want to lose my job over it.
	Like, because I said something.
	But now people are saying, oh yeah, I'll lose my job over this.
	Yeah, you can cancel me, but I'm not going to let the country be overrun.
	That's not going to happen.
	So I think men have finally reached their limit, and some good things might happen from it.
	I don't think we can ignore that every woman on the Supreme Court voted to let the government take down the barbed wire.
	If that feels like a coincidence to you, Remember that included you know one Republican woman So I don't think that's coincidence.
	Yeah, I don't think that's coincidence.
	I think that women are just not Biologically on average again lots of exceptions, but on average.
	I don't think they should be involved in the defending the country decisions now Do you remember when you all got mad at me and yelled at me and said, I said I should stay out of abortion decisions?
	Me personally.
	Because as a man who's not having a child, I don't have a skin in the game.
	Well, the skin in the game in this case is men.
	Because ultimately, we're the ones who are going to have to lock these people up, protect you from them, form a bigger military to fight whoever we've got to fight.
	So I think women should just stay the fuck out of all the national defense questions.
	Legally, of course, they're citizens, so they can vote and weigh in if they like.
	But just as a better process, I'd like to Not give you my opinion about abortion.
	But again, other men if you want to.
	It's a free country.
	You have every right to do that.
	And at least I can be not a hypocrite.
	Right?
	Not a hypocrite.
	So when I say that I'm going to stay out of abortion because I think women are more capable and more skin in the game and it's more credible if they're the ones who are the dominant opinion.
	The same with national defense.
	A national defense decision that's supported mostly by women would have no credibility with me because I don't think they have the right biological instinct for this.
	And again, it's not every woman, it's not every man, it's just, you know, making general truths.
	All right.
	Pipe bomb story disappeared, but I think we can say...
	Yeah, I talked about abortion as a mating strategy, but I'm not telling you what you should think about it.
	Thank you.
	You can think about it any way you want.
	I'm just giving it a reframe.
	All right.
	Abortion murders the baby.
	I'm not going to talk about this.
	Yeah, you can try to draw me in, but it's not going to work.
	And by the way, I don't disrespect your opinion on abortion.
	I'm not saying I even disagree.
	I'm saying that the less you hear from me on the topic, the better the country is.
	Because you wouldn't want me to be persuasive.
	I wouldn't.
	I don't think that our abortion laws should be based on men who are really persuasive at getting their way.
	That would be a bad system.
	Even if the decision is right, it's a bad system.
	And ultimately, the system is more important.
	Because the system will kill you if you get it wrong.
	It'll kill everybody.
	But, you know, a bad decision you could live with.
	All right.
	And again, I'm not saying that women shouldn't be involved because there are lots of individual differences.
	All right.
	Yeah, Vivek had an idea about making the man responsible for life, for the child, and I think for the mother's well-being as well, and that men would stop, you know, getting with women without protection if they knew that they would pay for it for the rest of their life.
	Maybe.
	I mean, I would just stop having sex under those conditions.
	If I were a young man, I would just stop having sex.
	There's no way that I would have unprotected sex with a woman, or even with protection that might not work, if I thought that the only recourse is that I have to be with her forever, even if I didn't want to be.
	I'm going to do full robot, if that's the case.
	We need those robots!
	All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's way too much.
	I'm going to say goodbye to the YouTube Rumble and X-Platforms.
	Thanks for joining.
	I hope it was good for you, too.

▲