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, Sora Open AI, President Milei, Argentina Budget, President Trump, Mike Benz, Censorship Framework, Ross Ulbricht Clemency, Tailored Hoaxes, Jonathan Turley, Ted Lieu, NATO Dues Hoax, Julian Assange, Changing Word Meanings, Censorship Silo Silencing, Trump Sneakers, Governor Hochul, Priming 86 Biden, Israel Hamas War, 2 State Solution, Scott Adams
---
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.
It's the best thing you can do on a Sunday, and all the other days, too.
If you'd like to take it up to a level that nobody can even imagine with their tiny human brains, all you need is a copper mug or a glass, a tankard shell as a star, and a kenteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine to entertain the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Go.
Oh, so good.
So, so good.
Well, I have a little discovery I made with the folks who subscribe to my content on the Locals platform.
Almost, well, every day, basically.
I talk to them and see their comments, and I was noticing a pattern.
And the pattern was a number of people kept saying things like, I decided alcohol was poison, and I haven't had a drink for, you know, three months.
And then people started saying, I stopped eating wheat and sugar just to experiment, and I lost, this morning, 11 pounds in one week.
Eleven pounds in one week.
And then we sort of celebrate it, you know, when one of the people on Locals does well.
And I realize that we've created an artificial version of the effect where the five people you spend the most time with are the ones that influence you.
So there is some science, if you believe it or not, that if you hang around with people who are not doing well, it'll drag you down to their average.
And I say not doing well in every way, right?
From ambition, to fitness, to eating, to exercise, that sort of stuff.
But it turns out we've created this little artificial... It's accidental.
It wasn't part of the plan.
But just the nature of how things evolve, the folks on Locals are getting immensely healthier.
If you told me that would be one of the outcomes of having my own little, you know, channel of subscribers, I really wouldn't have guessed that.
But there seems to be an immense effect of some kind of group motivation, but there's also a social proof that comes with it, because almost every day the other people who haven't yet made any change in their life Are watching the comments of the people who do, and really simple changes.
Just take wheat and sugar out of your diet and processed foods for a couple weeks and just see how you feel.
That's it.
That's it.
That's the whole ask.
Just see how it feels for a couple weeks.
If you feel better, keep doing it.
If you don't, well, it's up to you.
So yeah, no pressure, but people are feeling the social effect Not only of identifying with a group that seems to be favoring healthy activity, but being motivated and getting that social proof.
So somehow, accidentally, we've created some massively useful health outcome.
Nobody saw it coming.
It just sort of created it on its own.
Well, here's a little update.
Everybody keeps talking about the Sora AI that allows you to make a video just by putting some text in.
And the examples are just wildly amazing.
And the text you might enter would be something like, a unicorn walks down the street of New York City, then there it is.
However, there was one thing I suspected about it that I saw what I think is a confirmation, which is it's not ready.
If you think you can make a movie out of it, here's the problem.
At the moment it only does, you know, a minute at a time, but we're quite sure that that's a temporary limit.
So at some point you'll be able to say, Make a movie out of this book, which is what I plan to do with one of my books, God's Debris.
When the technology is ready, I'm just going to feed it the PDF and say, make a book, or make a movie out of it.
Now, here's the thing.
As David Sachs on the All In podcast was explaining, I think he's right, and I think I'm right because I was suspecting the same thing.
You can't edit it.
So apparently that's built into the nature of the large language models.
So here's what you can do.
You can say, you know, there's a unicorn walking through the streets of New York City, and then it will present one.
But suppose you say to yourself, it should be, let's say, 10 years in the future.
So you want to keep everything that you like, but maybe make the cars look more modern?
Can't do it.
You'd have to do a whole new movie.
So you'd have to put it into your prompt and say the cars are from the 80s, it's New York City, and there's a unicorn.
But the second time it draws the unicorn, and the second time it draws New York City, It won't be similar to the first time, not even a little.
It'll just be a brand new idea.
So you don't have the ability to tweak it or edit it, which means it can't be used to make a movie, because making a movie is mostly tweaking and editing, right?
The editing is at least a half of the process.
So not only can the large language models not edit, But apparently, the nature of how they create their intelligence in the first place should preclude that possibility.
So your normal instinct is, well, I can't do it now.
But obviously they'll be able to solve that.
Maybe not.
So this is the thing I was suspecting.
I was kind of suspecting it might not be editable, which makes it useless.
So unless it magically creates a hit movie on one try, You can't, you can't tweak it.
So I don't know that we're really close to it.
We might be just creating what I think Chamath called on the All In podcast.
I think he called it marketing ware.
I've called it demo ware for a while now.
You can demonstrate what you think it might be able to do in the future, but it can't now.
But maybe it can't ever.
I think we may have reached a point where it's demonstrating things that it won't ever be able to do.
You know, more like every corporation in America.
Alright, so keep an eye on that.
Argentina, with its new wild man president, Millet, he just achieved a balanced budget for the first time in over a decade.
And he did it by freezing spending at 2023 levels and then cutting a bunch of agencies by over 50%.
And I thought to myself, wait a minute, you can actually do that?
How do you even have the power to do that?
I don't even understand how that was possible in their system, but... Okay.
So, now when you hear something like Vivek saying he wants to cut something, you know, the FBI by 75% or something, it sounds actually practical, doesn't it?
Now we have to watch and see if it works.
We don't know if it's going to work.
It could make things worse.
But there's plenty of anecdotal evidence.
Tell me if you've ever heard a story like the one I'm going to tell.
A completely different story.
But tell me if you've ever, in your experience, heard a story like this.
Here's my version.
See if you have a version of your own.
I used to work in a big hotel when I was a youngster in my college years.
And in the summers I'd be in the salad room cutting up lettuce for salads, basically.
Because we needed a lot of salads in the hotel.
And I'd just be cutting stuff up all day.
And one day, one of our group of, I think it was, there were, I think there were five of us and one person quit.
And my boss, who was one of the coolest bosses of all time, came over and she said, here's the deal.
I can either hire another person to replace the person who left, which is kind of extra work for me, or the rest of you can share the salary of the person who quit and we'll just make you work harder.
And every one of us just looked at each other and said, yes, because it turns out that the ones who are left are the ones who are really killing it.
You know, I always came in early.
You know, I never missed a day of work.
I cut salads just the way they're supposed to be cut.
You know, I didn't mess around too much.
And the other, my co-workers were that same personality.
So, let me ask you this, and you know the answer.
You already know the answer.
How easily did the four of us do the work of the five?
It's super easy.
What?
No effort whatsoever.
Couldn't even tell the difference.
Didn't even know the difference, right?
Now, how many times have you heard the story about some corporation that massively cut their department and it worked better?
Right?
Yeah, the X platform, Twitter, exactly.
Yeah, it's a fairly common story, because the reality is that the people who do good work are a minority of every group.
And if you get rid of the people who are sort of the excess, you end up better, not worse.
So I do think that the Vivec method is real, and we'll see very quickly if the Millet method works.
So, because the simulation is kind to us and gives us good stories that we think are a reality, you know the story of President Trump losing in his lawsuit, and now he's gonna have to pay something like four to five hundred million dollars, you know, depending on interest and what gets added to it and all that stuff.
So the same week, That what would be more than 100% of all of his cash, we're told, is now owed to somebody.
The SEC cleared the, is it a merger or an acquisition, of Trump's Truth Social by a larger entity.
That's hard to explain.
And Trump's value in that could be $3.5 billion.
So let me do the math.
Trump lost half a billion-ish this week.
Is that like the worst week you've ever heard in your life?
Can you imagine a week where you lose half a billion dollars to absolute illegitimate process?
How angry you'd be.
Unless, unless that same illegitimate process, wait for the fun part, there's the fun part, you'd really be mad if an illegitimate government process
Caused you to lose half a billion dollars unless, unless that exact same corrupt government caused you to be so censored on the X platform that eventually you had to create your own social media entity which is now worth 3.5 billion dollars.
So by screwing him as hard as they could, up to the tune of half a billion dollars, he managed to probably triple his net worth.
Because he monetized their evil.
He monetized their evil.
That's a real thing.
Have I ever told you he's an energy monster?
Here it is.
Do you need better evidence?
Then they threw every bit of bad energy at him, cost him half a billion dollars this week, just the loan.
I mean, think of all the other legal expenses.
If you add up all of his legal expenses, it's at least half a billion.
And he managed to use that same energy, which had been coming at him for years now, he managed to turn that energy into his own social media empire, which although it's much smaller than X and is not profitable yet, but still valued at $3.5 billion as part of a larger entity, which has its own value, of course.
So it's a more complicated story, but am I wrong that that's what happened?
That I've been telling you since 2016, he's an energy monster, and you don't know what's happening because the more energy you throw at him, the stronger he gets.
This is the perfect example.
It's the perfect example.
Well, now let me ask you again, because this is so important to the future and our understanding of reality.
How many of you now have seen the Mike Benz interview on Tucker's show?
Mostly yeses.
Have you noticed that it's getting bigger and not smaller?
At least on X. Yeah, I think it hasn't crossed over to any other media, has it?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but except for the podcast universe, the Mike Benz thing, which is the biggest news maybe in human civilization.
It might be.
It might actually be the biggest news story, not just in America, Well, maybe the Holocaust is a bigger news story.
I don't like to compare anything to the Holocaust, so we'll just put that aside for a moment.
It might be the biggest story in human civilization, when you look at all of the moving parts to it.
And I think he's going to be completely shut out from the mainstream media because that's what his story was.
His story is that the mainstream media can just change reality and they're doing it right now.
They're just completely shutting him out.
But here's what the, let's say the big accounts on X are saying something very similar.
I heard a lot of hype about this video and it is justified.
Now, a lot of people said some version of that, like these are the bigger accounts, saying, oh, OK, people said this was a big deal, but it's a much bigger deal than I thought it was.
Now, I might be the person who hyped it the most.
Did anybody notice?
I don't think anybody hyped it bigger than I did.
You want to know how much I hyped it?
Let me read you my pinned, so it's my pinned thing.
It's going to stay there for a long time.
So, you know, I linked to Tucker's interview with Mike Benz, and here's how I introduced it, because I didn't want to take a chance you wouldn't watch it.
So, see how much persuasion, you could call it hype, is in my post.
I said, this is the most extraordinary thing I've ever seen.
Now, doesn't that make you automatically doubt whatever is going to come next?
Because really?
Really, Scott?
Is it really the most extraordinary thing you've ever seen?
It actually is.
It literally is.
But I'm going to have to back that up, right?
So if my first sentence is, it's the most extraordinary thing I've ever seen, I'm going to have to say more about that.
And so I do.
I said I'm not exaggerating.
Because that's what you were thinking, right?
So I answer you before you have to ask, because I know you're thinking it.
So that's always a good communication technique, is to know the question that you just put in somebody's head, because you created the question in their head by what you said, and then you answer it.
It's a good technique.
Anyway, and then I said, this is like a mushroom trip without the mushrooms.
Now that takes your head to a different place, doesn't it?
Because I just said it's the most extraordinary thing.
You thought, oh, it's an interesting news story.
Nope.
Nope.
It's not an interesting news story.
It's a freaking, it's a psychedelic experience.
Because it'll take your brain somewhere you didn't think your brain could go.
So I wanted people to know that this is not news.
It's an experience.
How many would agree, having watched it, that it's an experience?
Does that sound right?
Now watch the comments.
Yeah.
So if you haven't watched it yet, watch it.
It's 100% yes.
It's not really like content in the way you normally think of it.
It's not news in the way you think of it or investigative reporting in the way you normally think.
It's actually an experience.
Because it's actually packaged and presented in a way that just makes you feel something that's just incredible.
You know?
So, anyway.
Then I said, clear your schedule tonight and listen together.
Why did I say together?
Name my technique.
What's the technique?
When I said watch it together, what happens in your mind?
It draws you a picture of who you're with, like a spouse or something like that.
So you don't have to, of course, listen together, but because I put a picture in your mind of watching it together, I elevated how important it is and I made it visual.
Because making it visual goes a long way to making it real.
If you can imagine it, you're more likely to do it.
So I made you imagine it.
By giving you the together word which you filled in the blank with the person you would most think you'd want to watch it with.
And then I went for the kill shot.
I don't usually persuade this hard, but I decided to just put the hammer down on this one.
So if you want to know what it looks like, When I pull out all the stops, it looks like this.
Because I don't do it that often.
But this is me being absolutely, overtly, transparently full persuasion.
And nobody's going to be confused or fooled by it.
You can see I'm doing it.
And here's the kill shot.
I said, in a week, everyone who has not listened to this will look like an idiot to everyone who has.
There's your kill shot.
Nobody wants to feel like an idiot.
Everybody wants to have an experience that's like mushrooms without the mushrooms.
Everybody wants to have the most extraordinary thing they ever had.
And then I made them picture themselves doing it in the future with somebody they enjoy.
Because if it's somebody they enjoy, I'm using the unearned credit of how you feel about the person you'd watch it with.
Oh, that's my loved one.
I love doing things with that person.
And then I paired it with my idea that it would be with this content.
And now the goodness of that person and the content become a little merged.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is full persuasion.
Did it work?
It's got 4.1 million views.
Yeah, it worked.
Do you know how hard it is to get somebody to watch an hour of video?
It's hard.
It's really hard.
Now, it's Tucker.
Right, so getting somebody to watch a Tucker thing if they're watching my feed is not as hard as it would be for something else.
But we're going to juice this thing until it's in everybody's mind, and it is the theme of the rest of my presentation today.
And the theme is that once you've seen the, I'm going to call it the Mike Benz frame, that you understand the massive censorship structure, you understand the Atlantic Council, you understand all of the non-government entities and the Soros funding, and how together it creates this really almost unbreakable wall around real information so that they can give you any misinformation they want.
All right, so America First Legal, that's the Stephen Miller legal organization that's fighting legal battles on behalf of Republicans, posted this.
Now we're going to tie it all together, remember.
Everything is under the framework of the Mike Benz frame.
Because once you're in that frame, everything makes sense for the first time.
That's why it's so mind-blowing.
So there's a group named CISA, C-I-S-A.
I won't get into the details of that, but just suffice to say a bunch of Democrats created a group that had some power over some governmental decisions.
They recommended, knowing that they knew the in-person voting didn't spread COVID, I think we know they knew that because of some internal documents, but I could use a fact check on that.
I don't think America First is speculating what they knew, like mind reading.
I believe there's a document that says they understood the science.
They also knew that mail-in votes are less secure, which I also believe is not based on any mind-reading speculation.
I believe there are actual documents of them saying they understand that.
But I think everybody understands it.
There's nobody who wouldn't understand that.
So then they supported a policy change to a less secure system to solve a problem that they knew didn't exist, which is the risk of voting in person.
And then they formed essentially a network of tools to censor the narratives against mail-in voting.
So just think of how many pieces of evil this took.
Number one, creating a fake organization which purports to do something useful but really is a political tool.
That's evil number one.
Knowing that in-person voting is not a problem, but acting like it is.
Evil number two.
Knowing that mail-in voting is less secure, but wanting to do it anyway.
That's number three.
Supporting the policy change is, I suppose, almost the fourth one, but we won't count that one.
And then they censor the narratives that say that might be a problem.
That's four.
And then they ruin the lives of the people who are the people who might be talking about stuff like this.
That's five.
That's five extraordinary alleged pieces of evil.
That's a lot of evil.
That's just one organization.
Of a whole bunch of organizations that Mike Benz describes as part of this censorship effort.
And as you know, censorship is total control.
If you can control the information in a country, you control everything.
Would you agree?
You don't need to control the money directly.
You don't need to control the politicians directly.
If you can control the information, You can change the politicians.
You can change what the politicians vote for.
You can change anything.
So in controlling the information is a coup.
Let me say it again.
In the modern world, taking control of the information process of any country is a coup.
It's not like a coup.
It is the coup.
Because controlling the physical bodies is somewhat irrelevant once you control the information.
Because the rest just comes automatically.
Right?
Let me give you an example.
If you can control information, then I can say, did you drive a blue car today?
Well, yeah, I did.
Oh, a blue car is the color of terrorists, so I'm going to arrest you and put you in jail for obviously being a member of a terrorist organization.
Wait, what?
What?
Yeah, no, your argument won't ever be heard.
Wait, what?
That's right.
You can put anybody in jail for anything you want, as long as you control the narrative, because the public wouldn't know anything was going wrong.
So here's what Rasmussen Reports reminds us that the Heartland Institute, this is recent, did a study of survey results and found that mail-in ballot fraud significantly impacted the results of the 2020 election, and that Trump would have almost certainly won without the massive, often illegal, expansion of mail-in voting.
The often illegal part Is that, you know, there was sort of some emergency COVID things that wouldn't normally happen that made things less secure, let's say.
Now add to that the obvious lawfare against Trump, and you can see the Mike Benz narrative in full force, right?
You can see how the censorship industrial complex, by simply controlling knowledge and information, can make anything else happen.
It moves all the other parts of the machine.
So they only have to control the information, And now they do.
So now they have a complete control.
Now you're saying to me, but Scott, obviously they don't control the information because you're talking about this in public, right?
How many of you thought that?
How many thought, well, this doesn't make sense because you're actually in public right now saying all the things you say would be suppressed if there were this alleged big censorship blob, right?
Well, I noticed that I was getting a lot less interaction with Democrats for the last number of months.
And so I did a little survey on the X platform.
I asked people how many who were seeing my post were Democrats.
And the answer came back 4%.
Now, do you think it was 4% Five years ago?
No.
No, it was closer to maybe 20 or 30 percent.
A little bit closer to the nature of the country itself.
Do you think that happened on its own?
I don't know why it's happening.
I have several hypotheses.
Hypothesis number one, the X platform is compromised by the intelligence services.
I don't know that.
I'm just giving you all the possibilities.
The other possibility is that there's some legacy code that affects people like me, and I just don't know it.
And maybe even X doesn't know it.
You know, maybe Must doesn't know it.
Because remember he said there was a whole bunch of spaghetti code that they were trying to, you know, untangle.
And there was just a whole bunch of ways they were suppressing people in different ways.
They might not know.
It might be a coincidence.
However, it wasn't like this before.
So, something changed.
Something changed.
So I don't think it's legacy leftover code.
Something changed.
Now one of the things that changed was I got cancelled.
It could be that maybe the cancellation itself, which of course I believe now because of the Mike Benz filter on things, I believe was probably a CIA operation to censor me because I'm one of the people who consistently says things that they don't want to hear.
If you look at the context of other people who say things they don't want to hear, All of us have been attacked financially.
Elon Musk, $56 billion taken away.
Trump, half a billion dollars taken away.
Alex Jones, bankrupted.
Do you see the pattern?
It's a pretty clear pattern.
Mike Flynn, bankrupted.
Probably, I don't know if he was bankrupted, but probably was expensive.
Linda Iaccarino was at NBC before this?
Somebody said?
Oh, Peter Navarro?
Peter Navarro silenced?
Yep.
Mike Lindell?
Roger Stone?
You see it now, right?
Now, given the context, how many of you, and also the context, that zero Republicans ever complained about the nature of my cancellation?
Zero.
Not a single one.
So now what do you think was the real reason I got cancelled?
Starting with the Washington Post, the most obvious CIA connected entity.
And who wrote about it the most?
Phil Bump, the same guy who wrote about the laptop being real, even after we knew it wasn't real.
Phil Bump kept writing about the laptop being real even after we knew it wasn't real.
And he's also the one that said, you know, I'm terrible and the cancellation makes sense.
So you see it all, right?
It's all this.
Yeah.
So it's getting more and more obvious.
Now, given that there are a lot of things that I may have looked at one way before the Mike Benz revelations, and now I see it a different way, I see that Vivek Ramaswamy and a number of other prominent people want clemency for Ross Albrecht.
Now, Ross is in jail for life for building the Silk Road network so that people could do things without the government knowing they were doing them online.
Unfortunately, a lot of the things they did were sell drugs and, you know, every manner of illegal thing because that's what it was good for.
But let me ask you this.
Number one, why did he get life?
Who gets life in prison for a non-violent crime, even if you created a tool that somebody else used for terrible purposes?
How many of you knew he was in jail for life?
How many of you knew that going to jail for life was even a thing?
I thought if you didn't kill a room full of people, I thought you couldn't possibly go to... Isn't murder a lot less?
Do people even go to jail for murder for life anymore?
I guess it would be a special case they would.
So the first sketchy part about this is, wait a minute.
Now put the Mike Benz filter on it, okay?
So you know that the most important thing to control is the internet, so the CIA knows who's doing what, and information.
And then this guy creates something that makes them blind to what's happening, and then he goes to jail for life.
Is that because if he got out tomorrow, he could build another one?
I don't know.
But even more interesting is the number of prominent people who are advocating for his clemency.
Is he the only overcharged person in the prison system?
Is it because he's a white guy?
That, like, he's the one that we think should be freed?
What about, yeah, I mean, well, to be fair, Vivek is also just as, he's just as vocal about the January 6th people being released as well.
So he's very consistent about the unfairly jailed people.
However, It seems to me that the reason he's being jailed is sketchy, and the number of people who are so excited about him but not other people, you know, just in general.
The J6ers are a special case because people are concerned about them.
But there must be tons of people who are overcharged.
One we're all caring about.
Do you know if there's something sketchy going on?
It's not just me, right?
There's something going on that has something to do with other people.
Don't know what it is.
But it's big.
Under this condition, I have been opposed to his clemency.
Very opposed.
Because, as you know, my stepson died of an overdose.
So I'm not too friendly with people who build a tool that makes it easier for somebody to sell drugs.
However, after the Mike Benz framework, and when I spent two seconds looking into it, and I said, huh, in two seconds I can tell that everything is wrong with this.
Now I'm in favor of clemency because I don't trust my government to put people in jail.
People like this.
I don't trust my government enough to believe he should be in jail for life.
Do I think he did something that deserves some punishment?
Yes, I do.
He served 11 years.
What's the right punishment for this?
No, I know.
A lot of people were hurt by the ability for the criminals to do their thing more easily.
But if I trusted my government, the justice system, then I think I might trust them with this.
I'd probably say something like, I don't know enough about it.
I'm sure they got it right.
But when you see what happened to Epstein, you see what's happening to Trump, you see what's happened to Peter Navarro, you see what happened to the January 6th people, it makes the Ross Ulbricht thing look completely different, doesn't it?
So I'm going to double down on clemency.
Yeah.
By the way, just so you know how radical I am on this, Ross's mother asked me personally to help on the clemency.
I told her to fuck off.
So this is a pretty big change for me, right?
I told his mother that basically I don't care if her son dies in prison.
And I didn't mind saying it at all.
I didn't have any problem saying it.
But there's too much sketchy about this case, and now it's not about the Silk Road to me.
Now it's about my government, and I don't trust them, and I'd say that even if it were a mistake to let him out, 11 years is fine.
I'm good with 11.
I'm good with that.
It's time to figure out what's going on here.
All right.
So we've got the newest Russia collusion hoax.
As you know, there's always a Russia collusion hoax.
If you know the Mike Benz framework, you know that Russia hoaxes are the mainstream blob thing because they also hate Russia.
So if they can tie you to Russia, they get a twofer.
Oh, Russia's bad.
And you love Russia.
So you're bad because Russia's bad.
And Russia's bad, because we say Russia's bad.
And they are bad in some ways, but, you know, it's part of the narrative.
But I realize this.
The bad guys actually come up with a separate hoax for every demographic group they want to control.
So there's a Trump, you know, sex hoaxes for the ladies.
So we got some pussy grabbing and stuff like that.
So the ladies will be mad at him.
We've got the race hoax, like the Charlottesville stuff, and that'll keep the black voters on the sidelines.
So you've got a hoax for the black people.
Then you've got the Russia hoax itself, all the Russia hoaxes.
Now we've got the NATO-Russia hoax.
We've got the Trump is responsible for Navalny-Russia hoax.
We had the original Russia collusion hoax.
There was the Russia's paying bounties hoax.
There was the phone call hoax.
It's basically one Russia hoax after another.
I think the Russia hoax is work on the older generation.
Does that seem fair?
If you're a certain age, Russia is a scary, scary thing.
So they've got one for the old people.
That's the Russia hoax.
And now they've got the serial felon hoax.
And that's sort of a cleanup hoax.
And that should take care of all the people who don't understand how banks or free speech work.
Which is a lot of people.
I mean, how many people really understand banking?
Not many.
And how many people really understand free speech?
Well, you know, not completely.
And why do I say that the serial felon thing is a good hoax for people who don't understand banks?
Well, you may have seen a video of Mr. Wonderful, Kevin Leary, from the same show that Mark Cuban was on.
What's that called?
What's the name of the show?
The TV show, Shark Tank, yeah.
So he was a Shark Tank guy, but also an independently hugely successful investor.
And he explains to anybody who was willing to listen that what Trump did is what all developers do.
Not just in New York, but all developers all the time.
They say, my property is worth X amount.
And then the bank says, we don't think so.
And then the bank gets to decide.
And that's the whole thing.
And as O'Leary says, if what Trump did is illegal, then every interaction between every developer and every bank is illegal.
Because they're all doing it routinely.
They're all putting their own assets in the best possible light.
It's very subjective because nobody knows what somebody's going to pay for something until they do.
That's completely subjective.
Now the part about the square footage of the penthouse, to me that would be a silly thing to lie about.
It would be such a silly thing to lie about.
It doesn't seem likely that it was anything but a mistake, is my guess.
I mean, I don't know.
But I'd have a lot of reasonable doubt about that if I were in that situation.
Although reasonable doubt probably didn't matter in a civil case.
All right.
So there's a new fake entity that's like the fake Patriot Front.
So they have matching outfits and they carry Nazi flags and they suddenly appeared out of nowhere.
You should expect that at least one of them will be real because, you know, they'll probably at some point interview somebody or discover somebody's in the group.
It'll be a real, real racist.
None of us believe that it's organic, right?
Is there even one person watching this who, after seeing all the hoaxes and especially watching the Mike Ben's narrative, because one of the things that a color revolution does is it creates fake groups.
So creating fake groups to protest, or in this case, a fake group to make Trump look bad and to create a predicate for using our external tools of terrorism internally.
So if you don't have any real racists and white supremacists, you actually have to generate them to justify using the CIA tools domestically against Americans.
And that's what's happening.
So I don't think anybody watching this episode believes that Black Lives Matter was organic, or that Antifa was organic, or that the fake Patriot Front was organic, or that this new group whose name I don't even care about is organic.
It would be very unlikely that these are real.
It's all part of a longstanding pattern of fake groups propped up by people that don't want to be known.
But remember, don't be fooled by the fact that there would actually be real racists.
They're not all feds.
You know, it might be half feds or something, but I'm sure there's some real racists there.
Jonathan Turley, who talks a lot about the legal jeopardy that Trump's in, etc.
Did you know that one of Hunter Biden's attorneys threatened Turley with a defamation lawsuit?
And now you see this as part of the larger attempt By Biden and everybody associated with them to censor everybody who has any opinion that they don't want to hear.
So Turley is probably the best voice in simplifying and explaining the Biden legal jeopardy, which is substantial.
And so sure enough, there's a Biden associated lawyer who wants to threaten him.
But apparently there's information that Morris, his own lawyers, weren't too happy with him.
This is what Turley's reporting.
And that he's the one who came up with this elaborate conspiracy theory to explain how there was a conspiracy theory to make the laptop look real when he may have already known it wasn't real.
I don't know that for sure, but I imagine it would be an ethical violation if you knew the laptop was real.
And you concocted an entire story that you knew wasn't real that's a conspiracy theory.
So, here again, I think that Jonathan Turley is in real trouble, and I wouldn't be surprised if there's the Department of Justice or some other lawfare comes after him.
Because he's a little bit too effective.
So, sure enough, he's being attacked by the people who want to destroy anybody who's got a useful opinion.
Ted Lieu is one of the people pushing the absurd idea that because Trump invited Russia to attack NATO, which didn't happen, of course, in the real world, it was a joke, that you can turn that into something bad by your attitude.
Now, Ted Lieu is a good example of it.
I'd like to give you my impression of a Democrat turning any one of Trump's jokes or light-hearted comments into something terrible simply by the face you make and the attitude you display.
Are you ready?
Now, what Ted Lieu did was he turned Trump saying, no, if they don't pay up their dues for NATO, Putin can do whatever he wants with them.
Now that obviously was not serious.
Obviously.
But because the Democrats always turn his jokes into something serious, Ted Lieu turns that into, can you even believe that he would invite Russia to attack the United States!
Oh!
It's hurting me to think about the horribleness of his light-hearted joke!
Oh!
So you see it, right?
They all look like they're physically in pain, simply holding in their head how horrible the thing Trump did when it actually was a joke.
And you all know it was a joke.
So I'm going to give you my impression of Democrats criticizing Trump for a knock-knock joke.
Oh, and I don't know if you saw what he said, but he actually, he seemed, he was in favor of people knocking on your door that you don't know, which is basically a home invasion, and He's inviting—can you even hold this in your imagination?
That there's somebody running for president, and the Republicans are supporting him, and he's in favor of home invasions.
Oh!
Oh, it hurts me!
Oh, the pain!
That's every story from Ted Lieu.
How much pain he's personally in.
Because of the story he literally made up based on a joke that Trump told or a light-hearted comment.
And that's the entire MSNBC programming.
It's basically faces.
The Rachel Maddow face.
Rachel Maddow face And then you just look at their face you think man, he must be bad look at that face he must be bad All right, do you know why we have two parties in this country I Have a theory based on the Mike Benz framework that you need to control the Democrat Party because they control the unions and
And you need to control the Republican Party, because they control other stuff.
You know, big money stuff.
So, basically, the Deep State blog, whoever it is who's really in charge, they need centrist politicians, because the only thing they're afraid of is populists.
Because they can control both sides, and that gives them the people in charge, you know, the billionaires that happen to be Republican.
But then they can also get the workers by getting the unions on the Democrat side.
So basically, whoever is really in charge needs to have a two-party system.
Because as long as the two parties think they're actually competing, which it looks like they're not, it looks like it's all rigged.
To me, it looks like that way.
That's my observation.
It looks all rigged.
But if you have a two-party apparent system, then the two parties can scoop up all the power sources.
Does that make sense?
If you were just controlling one party and trying to make the one party win, it wouldn't be good enough, because the other party would still have some power.
Well, I guess the cops in New York City are getting hurt at record numbers.
1,200 were hurt in struggles with suspects in the last three months.
Almost 3,400 injured in 2023.
almost 3,400 injured in 2023.
Now, there are a lot of cops in New York City, but that sure feels like a lot of injuries, doesn't it?
Um...
Yeah, we don't care about New York City's crime if you're not in it.
It does feel like they brought it on themselves.
So, you know, even though I have great empathy for the citizens of New York, their government is giving them exactly what they promised, basically.
So what about Assange?
I guess Julian Assange is some kind of British extradition hearing and a lot of smart people want him freed.
He published some classified documents that he didn't personally steal.
Which would be legal for everybody else and routine, but he's the only one that they're gonna say, oh, he's not a journalist.
Do you see the Mike Benz trick where if you own the information, and you can make a word mean anything you want, you can simply say that Julian Assange is not a journalist.
That's all the tech.
They just had to change the word, and then they could put him in jail forever.
They just changed the word The word of what a journalist is, so that he isn't one.
And then they could put him in jail forever.
Because they changed the definition of words.
That's how they control everything.
Yeah.
With words.
So I see the Assange thing as more of the attempt to totally control information, because that's how you control America.
If America were a free country with still a republic, and I don't believe we're a republic anymore or anything like it, Then Assange would not be a threat.
He would just be part of the free speech journalistic history.
But because we have a full clampdown on real information, and the blob needs to control all sources from mainstream media to the social media, they also need to control Assange.
So it probably has nothing to do with any crimes he allegedly did.
And it probably has everything to do with if you don't control him, you can't control the country.
Is that fair?
Does anybody disagree with me?
That it wouldn't matter what he did or did not do, the people in charge can't have somebody who can give you accurate information.
Because if there's anybody who can give you accurate information, the whole thing breaks down.
Now, what about me?
I don't think I completed my statement.
The reason that I'm probably not at risk of being assassinated or put in jail forever like Assange is that they've already siloed me.
I have no contact with Democrats.
At all.
Because getting cancelled probably made a difference.
There's something happening on social media that's preventing me from seeing anything.
There might be some kind of group block lists or something like that that's going on.
Maybe some of them went to threads, but I doubt it.
I mean, not too many.
So I would say I'm in the same category of Assange, but the way they handled me was by just siloing me.
But Assange would be harder to silo.
It would just be harder to put them in a box, but I'm in a total box that I don't know how to get out of.
I have no idea how I could get out of my little box.
I guess I'm just talking to people who agree with me.
At the Navalny funeral, the Hill said over 400 people were detained.
Then I saw another report that said it was just minor fines and people were released.
Didn't it sound a lot like Russia was treating their insurrection like January 6th?
I feel like the January 6th treatment looks so Russian.
It just looks like there was a situation that was created to get the names of 400 people who might also be problems.
And so Russia probably just rounded them up, got their names, and said, all right, if you care enough to go to this funeral, you're on our list.
So they didn't really need to hold them in jail.
They probably just needed to arrest them and say, here's the deal.
You're now on our permanent list.
I wouldn't do a second thing wrong if I were you.
And in Russia, that's probably all you need to do.
Probably takes care of the whole problem.
All right.
So as you know, the blob and the media is after Elon Musk.
And the latest story is that there's a ton of the 75% of the traffic during the Super Bowl.
The X traffic was bots and fake.
And there's a story in Mashable.
Which seems to be telling the story.
And listen to how fake this sounds.
Once you've seen the Mike Benz framework, listen to how fake all of this sounds.
Number one, Mashable.
Does that sound like a publication you can trust?
No.
No.
Right?
But they talk about a company called Cheq, C-H-E-Q, who they call a leading cybersecurity firm.
And they track bots and fake users, and they're the ones who said 76% of traffic from X to its advertiser clients on the weekend of the Super Bowl was fake.
Huh.
Who do you think is this cybersecurity firm?
Do you think that's a cybersecurity firm that if you looked into it would be a bunch of Republicans?
Nope.
I haven't looked into it, but I think that would be pretty unusual.
Does it look like it's exactly more of what Mike Benz describes, as all of these non-government entities used as fact-checkers and watchdogs, and now cybersecurity checkers?
No, it sounds exactly like it's part of the ongoing operation to keep the American public away from anything like free speech, and they're going to have to take must down to do it.
So now they're going after his business model to try to crush X. You realize that if they get X, it's all over.
That's all that's left.
But I seem to be so siloed that maybe X doesn't make any difference either.
Have you noticed that the news is reporting a little less about what people tweeted than they used to?
Is that my imagination?
I feel like it used to be It used to be that what people tweeted was about half of the political news, and now they're really dropped down the references to it.
Not a coincidence.
Of course it's not a coincidence.
They're competing directly, so it makes sense.
So I don't believe anything on Mashable.
I don't believe any cybersecurity firm.
I don't know anything specifically about this one, but it's in the category of things that are always fake.
All right.
So I'm not making an allegation about this firm.
I'm saying this firm is put into a story in which the category is put into is the category that's always fake.
It's just always fake.
So maybe this is the first time it's not a fake.
And again, I don't have any specific information about this one company, but if everything about the story looks fake, maybe it is.
Maybe.
Part of the story said that everybody who's on X can see that there's more bot activity.
Let me test that with you.
I have way less bot activity.
But the story is that everybody can see there's more.
How many of you use the X platform and would agree that there's more bot activity than before you bought it?
I'm looking at your comments, I'm seeing opposites.
Some say more, some say less.
With that many people saying less, to me it's way less.
I mean, a lot less.
Do you think it's fair that the story can just drop it in like it's a fact?
Because they reported it like it's so obvious everybody sees it, they don't have to give you a source.
Oh, everybody sees it.
And it's the opposite.
I don't think everybody sees it.
I mean, I'm looking for it, and I don't see it.
And I live this.
I mean, I'm immersed in X all day long.
I don't see it.
The only time I saw it was when I said some things that were inconvenient, and the bots, the obvious bots, swarmed me.
But I don't know if you even call them bots, because they're human beings who are coming, trolls, basically.
They're just trolls coming over to dump on my account.
But then they go away.
They go away as soon as I call them out.
They go away instantly.
So they're not real.
Yeah, anyway.
Trump has announced he's selling sneakers.
And he says he sold out as soon as they were announced.
And he went to SneakerCon.
I guess there's a SneakerCon?
And he was, you know, autographing sneakers and whatnot.
And I have a question.
I don't know much about the sneakers world, so you're going to have to give me a fact check on this.
In my local mall, a store popped up of expensive kicks, yeah, expensive footwear.
And it's, you know, sneaker type athletic footwear, but the, you know, the many hundreds of dollars types.
So everything in the store is like hundreds of dollars, because they're like special high-end sneakers.
So now, Trump comes up with a, I think it's a special high-end sneaker.
Does it not directly appeal to that same crowd?
He's targeting a group which he's largely ignored, hasn't he?
And here's what I'm wondering.
If you were black and male, would you buy Trump sneakers and wear them?
I don't know.
I'll tell you what.
I wouldn't wear them as a white boy because I think I'd get my ass kicked.
Like, you know, same reason I don't wear a MAGA hat.
Well, I don't wear branded merchandise, so I wouldn't wear either one of them.
Never have.
People think I walk around with a MAGA hat.
I've never put one on.
I never would.
I just don't put people's brand on my head or my body.
That's just not something I'm going to do.
But I have a question.
This might be genius, and I can't tell.
Or it might be just, you know, the fundraiser that's kind of clever.
But what if he gets black men to be so radical that they'll wear Trump sneakers right in front of everybody?
Is that going to happen?
I would bet against it.
But I'm not 100% sure this could make a dent that nothing else could make.
If this could turn into a status symbol, then not only are you such a free thinker that you can wear these shoes, but they kind of look cool too.
If it turns into that, you might see some kind of a cultural shift happening that this wouldn't be causing, but it might be more, more, uh, let's say following.
I don't know.
Keep an eye on that one.
It's fascinating to me because there may be a lot more to this politically than it looks on first look.
There's a tragic story of the son of YouTube CEO, recently until 2023, Susan Wojcicki.
Her freshman son died in UC Berkeley from a fentanyl overdose.
He died in his dorm room.
You all know that I have maximum amount of empathy for that because my own stepson.
But I was trying to put myself in her head.
She is a woman who, because she was the head of YouTube, had to be aware of the massive censorship entity.
Which means that she had to be aware that she was really one of the most important players in the Democrat kind of control of the media and keeping them propped up and in power.
Because if the media did not support Democrats, it'd be hard for them to do what they do.
So, for years, she spends her life supporting a Democratic Party who, very pointedly, did not close the border, and certainly hasn't done enough about fentanyl.
Now, I want to be fair.
Trump didn't do enough either.
Trump did not do enough about fentanyl.
Don't tell me I'm a hypocrite.
No, he didn't come close.
I don't know why.
Because he put some effort into it, but no benefit whatsoever.
But how do you think she felt carrying the water for the administration that killed her son?
In my opinion.
In my opinion.
I mean, I don't want to dump on her because, you know, she's having the worst... I guarantee it.
It's the worst year of her life.
Worst day of her life.
And that will never change.
So I have maximum empathy.
But it should be... Maybe it should be a warning to other people.
That your uncompromising support of one party might have some implications you're not considering.
So if your own son dies from the side you're supporting, not getting it done, It's hard to ignore that.
Hard to ignore.
Now, uh, let me tell you something that if you don't know this, if you're especially a young person, if they die of a, an overdose and you say to yourself, well, it's going to be really hard for about five years and then, you know, maybe you'll get over it.
You don't get over it.
So I learned that the hard way.
I can get over really anything.
I can get over anything, anything that happens to me.
I get over it pretty easily.
I'm not one who dwells.
But the death of a child is permanent.
And you kinda know it when it happens.
You know it's not ever gonna get better.
It never gets better.
It never gets better.
And that's what, so she's in a living hell right now.
Because every day for the rest of her life, she will see him and she'll wonder what she could have done differently.
That will never, ever go away.
Every waking moment for the rest of her life, she's going to be a zombie.
And every part of everything she did up to that point won't matter.
It's all gone.
And she's in the news because she's notable.
But do you know how many other people lost their sons and daughters this week to fentanyl?
And every one of them is walking around in the same mental prison that she is.
And I see them, because I'm in it.
I'm in that prison.
So, that's all I have to say about that.
Kathy Hochul, the governor of New York, says it's not really dangerous to do business in New York just because they took down Trump.
And the reason is that Trump's situation was so unique.
So unique.
You don't have to worry about it.
His situation was unique.
Was it?
I don't think that the charges against him were the problem.
It's not the charges against him.
It's that the justice system was weaponized, obviously, and right in front of us.
If you weaponize your Department of Justice very obviously, very publicly, right in front of us, you can't do business in that town.
So, I would get out of there.
Honestly, I would get out.
If you're a Republican, Apparently you're just marked for problems.
I'll tell you, I live in a district that has a Soros prosecutor, and there are all these I see these efforts to collect signatures to remove her from office.
I don't know how that's going.
But I live in an area where I'm absolutely in jeopardy.
And except that I really, really want to live here, I would definitely move.
You know, if I didn't have ties here, I would move right away.
Because I'm in jeopardy.
I'm in legal jeopardy.
Whether I do anything wrong or not, I don't even think that's going to be part of the conversation.
But, absolutely.
I do not want to be anywhere near a Soros prosecutor.
Because you can tell now, and this is what I get from the Mike Benz thing, What I get is that the real reason for the prosecutors is not to let criminals out of jail.
That's just something that's happening.
Rather, it's to have a weapon against people like me to stop free speech.
So the weapon would be used to suppress speech, because that's the only thing you need to do to have full control of the country.
It's just speech.
Everything else just follows.
All right.
This is interesting.
So I want you to see if you think this is an accident.
Let's say you take the Mike Benz framework and you say all the major media is being manipulated by intelligence agencies, the CIA.
If you believe that's true, there's a story on CNN that is being prominently presented that's anti-Biden.
So would you say that maybe the people in charge want to get rid of Biden as quickly as possible?
But there's more to the story.
The story is from CNN.
I think it was Abby Phillips who was doing this.
At this point in their presidencies, Obama did 422 interviews, Trump did 300, and Biden so far has done 86.
And then they showed the number and then the face of each of them.
So there's the face of Obama with 422.
Face of Trump with 300.
300.
Like the movie.
And then there's the face of Biden with 86.
86.
You all know what 86 means, right?
86 literally means discard.
It's restaurant slang, but most people know it.
You all know, right?
In a restaurant, if you 86 something, you throw it away.
So they're literally running a picture of the three presidents.
They've got Obama with something that reminds me of marijuana, 422.
They've got Trump with 300, that reminds me of the most awesome movie of manliness.
And then they've got Biden with 86, that's literally the number for discard.
Now here's the question.
Did CNN just sort of randomly say this would be a good day to do this story, exactly on the day when Biden had 86?
Or do you think this is something that an intelligence agency would plant because the priming of putting an 86 over his picture is pretty strong?
That's pretty strong persuasion.
Is that an accident?
How many of you think that that's an accident?
I think the 422 and the 300, probably coincidence.
But 86?
Of all the... There's only one number that says get rid of.
Am I right?
There's only one number, and numbers are infinite.
The number of numbers are literally infinite.
And he picked the one number that means throw this away.
Yeah.
Could be confirmation bias, if we're being fair.
Confirmation bias makes you see things that aren't really there.
Could be that.
Could be that.
But if it had not been for the Mike Bens framework, that we see that real professionals are behind all the messaging, I would have done it.
If it were me, and I were aware that he had, say, low 80s, and I wanted to get rid of him, I would actually wait every day, and I'd say, there's 81, here's 82, and when it gets to 86, I would link it to the media, because I would know that that would be a cool thing to do.
It would work.
So we'll see.
Breitbart's Joel Pollack is reporting.
That Netanyahu decided to defy Joe Biden, who wants some kind of a two-state solution.
And so Netanyahu, this is a real dick move, but effective.
Netanyahu takes the President Biden's peace plan to his government to have them vote on it.
Rejected unanimously.
Now you might say to yourself, of course it's rejected unanimously because, you know, Israel wants to do what they're doing over there.
But did I mention it's Israel?
When was the last time Israel did anything unanimously in their government?
How many parties do they have in the government?
It's got to be the singularly least cohesive government of all time, at least in democratic countries.
And Netanyahu, who probably is not the most popular person in his own government at the moment, he still managed to get a unanimous vote against the US's idea of a two-state solution.
Now, what do you think of Netanyahu's persuasion?
What do you think of the persuasion?
A+.
A+.
Because he really needed to show that there was no flexibility in Israel.
To get a unanimous vote on that?
I don't know if he knew it would be unanimous, but that's pretty impressive persuasion.
And it's a strong pushback.
Because it literally embarrasses Biden.
And I think that was part of the point.
To literally embarrass them back from pushing for the two-state solution.
And so I tell you again, I see lots of reasonable people who want to pressure Israel to, let's say, be less aggressive in their war efforts.
But I've never seen anybody explain the alternative.
And that's why it's hard for me to be involved in it.
Because unless you can describe how you win by not winning, what's your opinion exactly?
Now, I get from a human perspective, if you watch, you know, the power of the State of Israel, and you watch the helplessness of the average, you know, Gaza resident, who every time I hear a story, I think, I don't even know how they're going to survive.
I mean, my level of empathy for the Palestinians is really high.
But, I have to live in the real world.
What would you advise Israel to do instead?
Do the same thing but slower?
Do you think that going slower is going to save lives?
I think that people don't understand maybe how military stuff works.
I don't.
So maybe I'll take a fact check on this.
Let me put some more humility into my opinion here.
I'm not the person who's the expert on this.
But I don't think it's obvious, this slowing down to take your time and make sure that you're being good to the local population as much as possible.
I don't think that gets you to fewer deaths.
It's not obvious to me.
But it is obvious to me that if you could win fast and brutally, at least you'd be done.
At least you'd be done with the killing.
And my intuition is maybe opposite of a lot of people here, which doesn't mean I'm right.
Because when I say it's my feeling, it's not based on military expertise.
But I would look for an opinion.
So if there's somebody here who has military expertise, like you've actually taught people strategy, maybe you worked in a military school or something, you tell me, is it generally considered That fast and brutal is actually going to be better for the population?
Because you just get it over with?
Or is starvation and dragging it out and creating more enemies because it takes longer?
Yeah, is it a rip off the Band-Aid is better?
It might not be.
I mean, and maybe there's no general rule here either.
Yeah, but my intuition says that the people who want to slow it down don't know exactly what they're asking for.
And even if you get down to the narrow question of slowing it down, what they're really saying is if you slow it down, next we're going to ask you to stop.
Am I right?
That's not the first request.
It's not the last request.
If they do a ceasefire, nobody's gonna say, or let's say they put more effort into protecting the local population than they already are, and we don't know how much they are, but reports say that they're trying really hard.
Even America says they're maybe doing more than we would've done to save the local population, and maybe that's true.
So it's a fog of war, so we don't really know.
Probably there's lots of bad apples along with the good apples, if it's like everything else.
But what else are you going to do?
I want to see somebody describe the two-stage solution in the long run.
What does it look like to you?
Do you think the Palestinians just self-organize into a peaceful coexistence?
After this, aren't they more radicalized than ever?
I would imagine they would be.
I mean, a lot of them are going to hate their own people.
They're going to hate Hamas for putting them in this situation.
But there will be probably five times that many who now dedicate their entire life to destroying Israel.
So how are you just going to live next to them?
To me, what Israel is doing is not something I could judge as good or bad.
It's just the only thing they can do.
If somebody is doing the only thing you can do, What's my opinion got to do with anything?
I'm just gonna stay out of it and watch it.
Now, let me be as clear as possible.
I do think that what's happening to these civilians in Gaza is a tragedy on a level that's hard to even imagine.
I do think it's the fault of their own leaders.
And I hate that the individual people have to suffer for the mistakes of their leaders.
But I also don't see an alternative.
Because I'll tell you who shouldn't need to suffer for the Palestinian leadership?
Israel.
Israel shouldn't have to suffer at all.
Because another group of people have bad leadership.
So I certainly understand why they do what they do.
But you don't have to be in favor of killing.
I think you could hold both feelings.
You could say it's a tragedy.
You wish it didn't happen.
At the same time, you could say, I don't have an opinion that would help any of this.
So that's where I'm at.
All right, ladies and gentlemen.
Have I made my point that almost all the stories today look like censorship stories when you boil them down?
And that the only thing that matters is control of our information network, because everything else follows from that.
You can put somebody in jail if you can control the information.
You can change the elections if you can control the information.
You can change the laws if you control the information.
Absolutely everything you see that's not working in our government, and here's the big reframe.
I haven't heard anybody say it this way, so tell me if I'm copying somebody.
I might accidentally be copying somebody.
In my opinion, everything you don't understand about the government, like, why aren't they closing the border?
Is that in every case, it's because there's something that's happening that the people in charge can use as a weapon.
So why is there DEI when it's so obviously a bad idea?
Because it's a weapon.
You can lock up, or you can ruin Republicans just by saying, oh, you're racist, and then the DEI thing supports all of that.
So it's certainly one of the things that got rid of me, the DEI structure.
The legal system, all the Soros funding of the prosecutors, it looks like that's all a censorship play.
The January 6th insurrection hoax, that's a censorship play.
It's all a censorship play.
And by censorship, I mean somebody wants to control all the information.
Yeah, even the border is probably a weapon, meaning that
Probably the people in charge need something like the help of the cartels to be a weapon So they may actually say yeah a hundred thousand people are dying But they probably would anyway because there's no way we could actually stop it But we can pretend we were not stopping it and then we can have the cartels do our dirty work for us It might be that's all that's happening it might be that
The cartels own the government of Mexico.
So far, would you agree?
I mean, I can't prove it personally, but do you agree that the cartels probably control the government of Mexico?
All right.
Now, do you know what you're missing in that story?
Probably the CIA controls the cartels.
So in other words, we may have already taken over Mexico.
Let me say it again.
The United States might already control the Mexican government the way we've controlled 80 other governments that we managed to co-win.
We may have simply used the organization that has power over the government to control it indirectly because controlling it directly isn't something we could do.
Now you try to tell me what would be important enough That we would let 100,000 Americans die if we could maybe tamp that down by being hard on the, by bombing the cartel.
I think the only thing that would be important enough is full control of Mexico.
So if you use the Mike Benz filter, and this is more than he said, so I'm just adding my own speculation to it.
According to that filter, The only reason that this problem is now solved, when it's so easy to solve, we all agree with that, is that somebody's benefiting from it.
And if they're benefiting from something that's big enough that they would allow the son of the YouTube, you know, ex-YouTube executive to die, and so many other people's children, it's got to be so important That they're willing to allow that.
And the only thing I can think of is full control of Mexico.
So we must control the cartels.
Probably it's something like the cartels agree to work with us to control the government because the cartels are getting some protection.
Something like that.
That would be my guess.
So my best guess is that Mexico is already conquered.
The U.S.
is already conquered by the same group of people.
And that we're no longer a republic.
There's some possibility we could get it back, I suppose.
But at the moment, I don't see us operating as a republic.
How many of you would agree with that assessment?
That we're not operating as a republic?
Now, on paper, we are.
It's just that when the founders put together the Constitution, they didn't understand that you could conquer the whole thing by controlling the information.
That just wasn't anything anybody would have thought of hundreds of years ago.
But at the moment, information controls everything.
So you can control the entire republic by controlling the information.
And now we know that our information sources are all controlled.
And that's where we are.
What can we do about it?
Well, the only thing I can imagine is Trump winning by such a large margin because the deep state is trying hard to get rid of Biden.
I mean, the fact that CNN is going after Biden, I think is a pretty good indication that he's not their choice for beating Trump.
They're going to have to get somebody in there Who, at least on paper, looks like the election could be close, and then the mail-in ballots would do the rest.
So, I think the battle here, the biggest battle, is that Biden is probably trying to stay out of jail, and so he can't leave the office, or keeping his family out of jail.
So I think he can't leave office, Which is the unforeseen consequence of bringing somebody in that they could control.
So they could control him because they probably know all of his secrets.
But now he also has to keep his own secrets so he can't leave.
So, if Trump wins by a big margin, enough to make the mail-in ballots not change the outcome, that's really probably the only hope.
And the beauty of it is that it might happen on its own, just because they're trying desperately to get rid of Biden.
But he won't leave and he's going to get worse and worse and worse up till election day.
And the public is going to say, we're not going to vote for somebody who's just not there.
So anyway, that's all we got for now.
And oh, somebody said Biden can pardon himself.
That's not good enough.
Biden is the only one, the Democrats, who could control the State Department of Justices as well.
That's something Trump can't do out of office, and maybe in office he couldn't do it either.
But through the Soros network, Biden can control even the states, not just the federal pardons and stuff.
But he has to stay in office to have that kind of power.
Anyway, ladies and gentlemen, let's make it so.
Let's make the Democrats, not the Democrats, because I don't think it's a Democrat scheme.
I think it's the people in power scheme who don't care if you're a Democrat.
But let's let them die on their own scheme, which is putting an incapacitated guy in office, and let them see how that works out.
Because that entire play depended on him not failing at a certain rate.
Like, if he could stay coherent, everything would work fine.
But his failure rate is way beyond what their current plan can hold.
Right?
Because if on election day he's still there, and he literally can't put a sentence together, it's over.
Right?
That would be the end of it.
So their entire game is up if he stays in office, and it looks like he is.
I would say the odds of Biden being assassinated are roughly equal to the odds of Trump or RFK Jr.
being assassinated.
Because you get to the same place in each of those cases.
So all they need is their own person in power.
They could do it by assassinating Biden.
They could do it by assassinating Trump.
And RFK Jr.
is just sort of the wild card.
They might need to keep him out of office as well.
All right, that's all I got for you.
Thanks for watching on the X-Platform and on YouTube and Rumble.
