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, Lex Friedman Podcast, Flying In Migrants, Reuters Polling Bias, Bernie 32 Hour Workweek, Soros Anti-Trump Prosecutors, Selective Prosecution, RFK Jr., Chronic Disease, Cartel Drones, Chinese Drones, Boeing Whistleblower Alleged Suicide, John Barnett, Inner Dialog, Aaron Rodgers, TikTok Ban Bill, Rand Paul, President Biden, Mike Benz, Brainwashing Americans, USAID Brainwashing, Information Censorship, Prebunking Technique, California Media Literacy, Senator Schumer Israel, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's time for me to stop my complaining.
I've been complaining this morning.
It's time to stop all that, because the fun stuff is about to begin.
Yes, and if you'd like to take your experience up to levels that nobody can even understand, all you need is a All you need is a cuppa, a mugger, a glass, a tanker, gels, or styne, a canteen, jug, or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Oh.
Well, if you missed the pre-show, I was saying that the Dilbert comic will be posted a little bit late today because we got a massive computer failure.
But I do have backup computers.
That's the way I roll.
So I just have to get my backup computers up to speed.
Well, here's a funny story.
Unless you'd ever like to travel again for the rest of your life, and then it's not funny at all.
But yet another Uh, airline related incident.
You probably heard of this one.
So the flight from Sydney to New Zealand, but there's a funny part of the story.
Uh, so it was a 787 Dreamliner and it had a sun drop.
So it's flying along and it suddenly just dropped.
It lost engines.
But the funniest story is from one of the passengers who was asleep.
So one of the passengers tells the story, I think it was in the Wall Street Journal or Washington Post, I forget.
Tells the story of waking up to the jolt.
So imagine this.
This is the story.
He's asleep and all of a sudden the plane has a sudden, you know, goes down.
He wakes up.
He looks around to see what's going on.
And he looks up and there's another passenger who's completely stuck to the ceiling.
Because the plane was still going down and he didn't have his seatbelt on.
So the guy's actually stuck to the ceiling.
And then, then the plane levels out and the guy's, ah!
Now, I hope he didn't get hurt.
Cause that wouldn't be funny.
But can you imagine waking up and seeing your fellow passenger pressed to the ceiling of the airplane?
All right, well, it's a tragedy, but it was funny.
Anyway, I have this hypothesis that everything we do is rationalization of our mating instinct.
That's a little bit of an oversimplification, but it explains so much of life.
For example, the job you get, the clothes you wear, the car you buy, I think are all a representation of your mating instinct.
You're either signaling something or you're peacocking to try to look like you're a good mate, that sort of thing.
And that's even if you already have a mate, because I think we're just biologically wired to be mating people.
So that hypothesis says that everything else we do is a rationalization because we're not totally aware that we're just basically bumping around trying to mate.
So we come up with all these reasons why we did, did things.
So this is important because, um, if you're seeing a shift of men from the Democrat party to the Republican party, there's a real obvious reason for that.
And I haven't seen anybody talk about it except me.
And the answer is that when the border is open, it's not a political problem.
That's not a political problem.
That is a security problem.
That's a physical problem.
What happens when there's a physical security problem anywhere in society, in any part of society, any country, any time in history?
The men take the lead, because it's a physical security problem.
Because they're bigger, and they're more expendable, and, you know, they basically can handle stuff like that.
On average, right?
Every person is different, but on average, men.
And when you see that the Democratic Party is in favor of keeping the border open, and you see the men saying, screw that, I guess I'm not a Democrat anymore, it's because of the mating instinct.
That's all it is.
Politics, politics, politics.
But men are seeing too many men coming in to compete, and the men are saying, uh-uh.
Nope.
But what about all the reasons?
Nope.
Nope.
How about not sending in massive numbers of men to compete with me and take my stuff and kill me?
Nope.
Hard no.
Uh-uh.
Nope.
Now, I don't believe that men are, of course, consciously conceiving it as a risk to their mating strategies, but that's what it is.
And then you say to yourself, but what about women?
Are women just as interested in security?
Yes, but you know what they like more than that?
Massive numbers of new men coming into their environment that they can mate with because they can't find mating possibilities in their current country with the current population.
And if you think I'm joking, nope, not even a little bit.
The mating instinct would suggest that because women, especially single women, who have the biggest play in the Democratic Party, the single women would automatically and subconsciously favor the introduction of more mating age men, even under dangerous situations, if they don't have mating options that they like where they are.
Do you think the single women are saying to themselves, wow, I got all the mating options from high quality men that I could ever have.
I have so many dates I can barely handle it.
Well, some do.
Top 10%.
But probably 90% of women are like, where are all the good men?
Not enough good men.
Why aren't men asking me out?
And so it should be no surprise.
That men would be trying to close the border so that more men can't get in and compete, and women would be on average.
Yeah, this is all just on average, not any specific man or woman.
And that all we're seeing is biology playing out through our pretend political process, where we act like that's really what's happening, but probably not.
Well, here's a shout out to Lex Friedman, who did something that was amazing and so useful.
And so good for the country.
I want him to go a little bit further next time.
But what he did was he had a debate on his podcast in which he got some people on different sides of the Israel-Gaza situation, and he let them talk it out with no time limit.
Now, you know I've been talking about what I call the Joe Rogan problem of talking about topics.
And it's nothing about Joe Rogan, of course.
I just use him because he's famous.
But it's about any podcaster who has one expert come on and present one point of view for an hour.
That is not helping you.
You think it is, but it's not.
Because if you're not hearing the counter argument at the same time, you're really just being brainwashed.
It might be true.
It might be useful.
It often is, but you don't know.
You don't really know without seeing the other side of the argument.
So the, the only way the society can move forward in terms of debate and understanding and being rational, the only way is if the people on different sides are in the same place at the same time without too many constraints.
Now the one, and so Lex did that, and I'm going to say one of the greatest things has happened in a year.
Does that sound like an exaggeration?
That the Lex Fridman podcast, just letting people talk it out, would be one of the greatest things that's happened in a year?
Yes.
Because I contend that 100% of our problems are brainwashing.
100%.
That if we can get our minds right, we actually don't have too many unsolvable problems.
We just don't have our minds right.
And our minds are not right because we're being massively brainwashed in every possible domain all the time.
And our media is completely illegitimate.
The news business is completely broken.
So you're not getting anything useful from the news.
And even our science and our experts are all broken.
So if you could find some way to get some little beacon of truth through all the BS, that would be the most important thing that our civilization has experienced.
And Lex is right on the edge of it.
He didn't get there.
Here's what's missing.
You still need a strong moderator, but you'd have to find a moderator who can actually just keep the flow of the conversation right without putting too much of a thumb on the content.
That's a real tough thing to do.
So Lex experimented, and so I'm 100% in favor of the experiment, which is what would happen if you just let them talk?
Just film them and let them talk.
Give them as much time as they want.
And the answer is, it probably really took a big step forward.
I think anybody who watched it probably saw two sides, and maybe they got smarter.
But the bit that I watched suggested that a little bit firmer moderating might have helped it a little, as long as the moderator wasn't putting a thumb on the content.
That is a gigantic beam of positivity that I hope can be taken into something bigger.
So great job, Lex, and I recommend this podcast.
You're aware that the government has been flying in illegals, not just people who are coming across the border on their own, but we've been flying them in.
And Rasmussen did a poll to find out what people think about that idea of flying.
We won't call them illegal, even though the crime of being illegal in entry is a real thing.
But let's just say they're bringing in the migrants.
And how many people do you think are in favor of that?
Take a guess.
How many people are in favor of spending money to fly in extra migrants while we've got a migrant emergency?
How many citizens do you think think that's a good idea?
You know the answer.
It's exactly 25%.
Yep, 25% favor the program, according to Rasmussen.
25% favor the program, according to Rasmussen. Now, 60% disapprove and then there's some other people in the gray areas.
But how in the world does our government continually get away with doing things that the majority disagree with vigorously?
The only way I can think this is happening, besides not telling people, is That people are so afraid of speaking the truth in public that they can get away with doing things hugely unpopular.
Because if you speak out against the migrants, you're a big old racist.
And maybe just people don't want to be painted that way.
So that might be part of it.
But we have a pretty big problem if the government continues to do things that the vast majority of the public says, I completely understand this issue.
You know, immigration isn't that complicated compared to other things.
We do understand.
And we don't want it.
I mean, the way it's happening now.
We do want immigration.
We need it.
But we need to do it right.
All right.
I asked the question the other day.
Is all of our alleged good economic performance compared to other countries because the United States is doing such a great job?
Or is it because we ran up our debt more?
So I asked Grok, which three countries, developed countries, industrialized countries, which ones had the greatest increase in debt?
Percentage increase in debt, not dollar.
Biggest percentage increase in debt since the pandemic.
And the three winners were Japan, losers I guess, Japan, United States, and the UK.
So those are the countries that ran up their debt the most as a percentage of their GDP.
So, let's check the news and see which countries are getting positive economic reports.
Well, Japan.
Japan is in the news for its unusually strong economy.
It's the number one increaser of debt.
Number two, the United States.
The United States is doing great compared to European countries, we're told, and also is the second biggest increaser of debt as a percentage of GDP.
Now third is the UK.
The UK is not exactly killing it, are they?
How's the UK doing?
I didn't think they were killing it, but I think the point is made.
How many great economists and smart people have you seen recently who have told you that, oh, our economy's looking good, jobs are good, and startups are good, and then they don't mention that the obvious reason for it is too much debt, and that we're in a debt-to-death spiral?
We'll probably figure it out.
I feel like that's kind of important, don't you think?
Kind of important to mention that?
Well, there's a weird thing happening with the comments here.
Let's see what's happening, because it looks like... Oh, I see what's happening.
I'm going to see if the comments are self-scrolling now.
It looks like they almost were.
Oh yeah.
I wonder if it's fixed.
Huh.
Looks like the comments are scrolling properly now.
It's like it got fixed while we were on the call.
That's a, that's a weird thing.
All right.
Well, good news there.
Um, here's another, uh, presidential poll that looks pretty fake to me, or at least the headlines.
Um, so I think this was in the Hill that said that Biden is holding a A one-point lead over Trump in a national poll.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe there's a national poll in which Biden is suddenly leading over Trump?
Does that sound even possible?
Well, let's see, who did such a poll?
Reuters, Ipsos.
Reuters.
Hmm, Reuters.
Well, Reuters is known as completely independent and unbiased.
Am I right?
Wait, in the comments you're disagreeing with me.
You're acting like Reuters is one of those biased toward the Democrats.
Well, as you know, no matter what the real polling results are toward the, when we get closer to the election, The illegitimate polling groups will tell you it's really close.
We all know that, right?
The illegitimate pollsters will all tell you it's a neck and neck race and there's no way to know who's going to win.
So if something unusual happened and the outcome, I guess that would be completely explained by all those polls that say it was so close you can't even tell who's going to win.
So yes, we can see all the plays developing way ahead of time.
Now, I don't know if the Reuters Ipsos poll is accurate or not.
No way to know.
But they do go on in the body of the article saying that Trump is ahead in seven of the close states.
So another way to report the same story would be Trump has a dominant lead.
Because if he's going to win in all the close states, it doesn't matter if he loses by a mile in California.
Because he was going to lose California anyway.
So the overall vote isn't telling you as much as individual state races, especially the swing states.
And it looks like Trump is still, he's got a handy lead in the important states.
And also, you have to read on into it to find out that if you throw Kennedy in the mix, then Trump wins.
The popular vote as well.
Don't you think that should have been the headline?
Given that we're pretty sure RFK Jr.
will be in most of the states, or all of them, don't you think that all the polling should include him?
They should do the poll with Kennedy in first, and then if they want to do a hypothetical, take him out.
But the headline should have said, Trump is ahead in all the key states, And he's completely ahead of his other two competitors in the race.
Is that the correct headline?
Why was the headline that Biden is beating Trump?
That's actually not what was happening.
That's actually just misleading.
Well, Bernie's talking about his 32-hour work week.
So it'd be a mandatory 30-hour work week, which really is a clever way to get a raise for salaried people.
So Bernie is, he might be crazy, but he's not stupid.
Because if you get paid time and a half for working over 32 hours, there's gonna be a lot of people who are gonna work over 32 hours, because they just need to, and they'll get a bunch of overtime.
So, I don't know that it's a good idea or a bad idea.
I'll tell you from my personal experience, that if you have a business meeting, and you don't have an end time, it will use up all the time until people are too hungry and they gotta pee.
But if you go into the same meeting and say, people, I've got 20 minutes and the meeting's over.
We've got to do all this work in 20 minutes.
Go.
Can they do it?
Usually.
Yep.
Usually you can make, you can make your work fit the time.
And humans have a vast history of doing that very consistently.
So if you cut your work hours down to 32, would you get roughly the same amount of work in?
Well, it depends on your job.
Right.
If your job is just standing there processing stuff, you're going to do less of it in 32 hours.
But there are other jobs where you're thinking and solving and fixing, and you definitely could do the same amount of work in 32 hours.
Only the good employees.
Bad employees will just do less.
So it's hard to know how that would work out, but I'd love to see an experiment.
I would love to see if it makes people happier and they get the same amount of money.
I don't think this one's crazy.
Do you?
How many think it's just crazy to go to 32 hours?
I feel like it's totally worth a try, but maybe not nationally.
Don't you think it's more of a state laboratory situation?
So Bernie should probably, you know, maybe be a thought leader on this, but I don't think we need any federal... I'd be against any kind of federal quick action on this.
But give it a try!
Find a state, give it a try.
Maybe it works.
I think that's within the range of unpredictable behavior.
Because what if it makes everybody happier and healthier?
It could make us happier and healthier.
It's possible.
Yeah, you know, if you're betting against it being a good idea, I'm not going to argue with you.
But isn't it true that Europe has a shorter work week?
Now, Europe is probably not killing it compared to the United States.
But I think what would happen is the people who want to work more would still do it, just employers would have to pay more.
And there'd be a lot of entrepreneurs who can work as long as they want.
Well, here's an update on the Trump Law Fair.
I don't think that I'm the best one to give you updates on the Trump Law Fair stuff because I'm not a lawyer and all of them look the same to me.
I cannot keep these straight.
Let me see, which one is the one with the Soros-funded black prosecutors who are just trying to get Trump with complete BS?
Which one is that?
Oh, that's right, it's all of them.
How am I supposed to keep them straight?
So, let's see, there's the Mar-a-Lago
Case where the judge is asking questions that strongly suggest that it looks like selective prosecution and If the judge is even asking the question has anybody else ever been prosecuted for this doing exactly the same thing and if the answer is no Nobody's ever been prosecuted for doing exactly the same thing and in fact Biden did at least exactly the same thing in the documents not the obstruction part
So, to my non-lawyer eyes, I think that one's going to get tossed out.
What do you think?
So that's my stupid non-lawyer opinion.
Just common sense.
So there's no way that that judge is going to do a trial in which even if the person is convicted, it would look like, well, no matter, it would just look like a, you know, not justice.
So I think Trump is going to get a good outcome on that.
Now, the secondary part is that it's not about retention of documents.
It's about Trump allegedly obstructing the attempt to get them back.
But here's the thing, then it gets complicated.
Again, I'm not a lawyer, so don't trust anything I say on this topic, but isn't it true that if there's no underlying crime, or at least one that's not going to be charged, is there obstruction?
Can you have obstruction of a case that shouldn't have been brought?
I mean, I guess technically you could, Maybe.
I mean, that's up to the lawyers.
But even if it's technically obstruction against something that shouldn't have been charged, still that doesn't become a court case, does it?
That you technically obstructed something that shouldn't have been a charge in the first place?
Can you actually go to jail for that?
Well, maybe technically you can.
But if it happened, people would have a lot of explaining.
So I've got a feeling that's gonna go Trump's way, but too early to say.
We're still waiting for the Fannie Willis decision about whether she stays on the case.
Has that been decided?
Well, it hasn't been decided yet, right?
I don't think so.
So, but one of the things that could happen there is if Fannie is taken off the case, there might be a prosecutor who doesn't even want to prosecute.
And just says, yeah, pass.
So that could just go away.
The whole thing could just go away.
Because I think unless they prosecute Fonny, which they probably are reluctant to do, how can you say that?
Well, you know, I don't have to finish that.
All right.
And then Alvin Bragg said, I guess he allowed some kind of delay.
I don't even remember what the Alvin Bragg one is about.
Was that about Stormy or payments or something?
Was that the Alvin Bragg one?
Oh, the judge ruled that Fonny is staying, somebody's saying.
So that just happened?
Oh, that's even better.
That's even better, isn't it?
Because now it looks so obviously unfair that it kind of guarantees that either they're going to have to find them innocent or it largely guarantees that the outcome will not be seen as credible.
It's kind of perfect.
This is the only situation in which I'm hoping they get the law wrong because they've painted themselves in such a corner If all the lawfare went away, I think it would hurt Trump at this point.
I think Trump will do better if he's under immediate, direct lawfare risk of jail right up until Election Day.
That'd be the ideal situation.
So, maybe, we'll see.
All right.
As I often tell you, we think we come to our opinions because we did our own research, and we've got priorities, and we read the news, and we formed an opinion.
Nothing like that happens.
You could ask science if you don't believe me.
We are assigned our opinions.
That's it.
You're assigned your opinion.
You choose a team, and then you choose a news source, and then the news tells you what your opinion is, and then next time somebody asks you what your opinion is, you repeat what you heard Jake Tapper say.
And that's your opinion, and you'll defend it, and you'll actually think you came up with it on your own.
The news is about assigning opinions, and people not realizing that's what happened.
That's what the whole business is about.
Let me give you, if you don't believe that, let me give you an example.
So, RFK Jr.
says, America has the highest chronic disease burden in the world.
America spends $4.5 trillion a year on health care, with 90% of that going to treat people with chronic diseases.
$4.5 trillion.
Probably unnecessary.
Probably because of some combination of pollution, microplastics, food that's poison, and lack of exercise, and pharmaceutical stuff.
Now that's all the stuff that RFK Jr.
has targeted as a highest priority.
And let me say this as clearly as I possibly can.
If we were capable of making our own decisions and we came up with our own opinions, RFK Jr.
would be leading in the presidential race by a mile.
He's the only one who's even identified our biggest problems.
What are the other guys working on that would save you $4.5 trillion a year and make you happier?
What problems would be solved If we got rid of chronic disease, well, it would fix the economy because people would be working instead of sick.
It would free up $4.5 trillion a year that we would spend on other goods and services, which probably would be better for the economy than spending it on health care for things you didn't need to spend it on.
Our mental health, our mindset, our rates of depression would be much better if we didn't have chronic disease.
People would be willing and able to reproduce because they wouldn't be obese and sick and they would look good to other people like they did a hundred years ago.
And maybe our national defense would be better because we could field a military that wasn't all sickly and fat.
There is nothing we're doing In any other form of politics that is as important as this?
Nothing.
Do you think the war in Ukraine has the same risk as this chronic disease thing?
Nope.
As bad as the Ukraine thing is, it's very unlikely it's going to turn nuclear, because there's just no reason.
And it has a limited number of deaths.
Let's say another million people die.
It's nowhere near as bad as the stuff that RFK Jr.
is talking about.
That's a million people.
I'm not minimizing the death of a million people.
I mean, that's pretty awful.
But it's not nearly the size.
The size and scale of what RFK Jr.
is talking about, and what should be its importance, is not even close to anything else we think is important.
Climate change?
Trivial compared to this.
Trivial.
Even if it's real.
Even if the alarm people are right, it's still trivial.
If you don't understand that, you've been brainwashed by the news.
If this isn't immediately registering to you as true, you've been brainwashed by the news.
These are not hard things to compare.
4.5 trillion dollars and, you know, 90% going to chronic disease.
Everybody you know has got some kind of chronic disease that we didn't used to have.
There's nothing we're doing that's this important.
Not even close.
And he's running a distant third.
So that's how you know that the media signs your opinion.
Well, you've seen some videos probably of the New York subway.
There was a fight and somebody got shot in the head and there was video.
So it looks terrible because the videos bring you right into the terrifying scene.
So you're actually on the subway while somebody's getting shot in the car that you're in.
Oh my God.
Now that looks really scary.
However, I believe there is a solution on the way.
We are shipping in enough Haitian refugees to eat all of the criminals.
No, I'm just kidding.
The Haitians are not cannibals.
That's just a rumor that people started.
There is no evidence that any of them are cannibals.
That is just a joke.
And by the way, it's not a racist joke, because if I heard that the Swiss We're rumored to be cannibals.
I'd be having just as much fun with it.
So before you go off and say, well, what'd he call, what'd he call white people cannibals?
Yes.
Yes, I would.
If it was funny, if it were funny, I would call white people cannibals.
In fact, uh, didn't, who was the serial killer?
Jeffrey Dahmer, Jeffrey Dahmer, white guy, cannibal.
Have I ever made fun of Jeffrey Dahmer being a white guy and a cannibal?
Yes, I have.
Yes, I have.
All right, there's a report that the cartels are using massive drones on the border to Check for places I can get across.
And I guess our military said that over a thousand drones per month are crossing into US airspace from Mexico.
A thousand a month.
Now, I assume that's really, you know, ten drones that are making lots of trips.
I don't think it's a thousand drones.
It's probably ten that work every day.
Because, you know, you got to check every day.
Still, way too much.
And one of those drones may have been in my backyard the other day, so that bothers me.
There's actually a debate about whether Chinese-made drones should be available for sale in the United States.
Does it seem like a good idea that our skies should be filled with Chinese drones, Chinese-made drones?
Is there nothing they can put in those devices that would be bad for us later?
Do they have software updates?
Do drones get software patches?
Probably.
Probably get smarter.
Yeah, I'd worry about that.
Well, Whoopi Goldberg said this on their show.
Quote, I have to say this before we go.
I don't believe Trump is actually out there, she confessed.
I think that's an AI of him.
OK.
And then she doubled down.
I think a lot of that has been AI, she said.
That's just my opinion, but that's what I think.
OK.
So it's a good thing we're getting our important opinions from The View, because that's one I wouldn't have heard anywhere else.
OK, sure.
However, the press has given some cover to that opinion, and noting that there are, in fact, AI-generated or Photoshopped pictures of what appears to be Trump being popular with black voters.
So, I think you've seen that one?
I've seen that one, where Trump is just, you know, he's surrounded by black voters who are clearly loving him, and he's hugging him and loving him back, and they're all smiling.
That's a fake photo.
I would imagine that there's going to be a lot more of those.
Given the power of visual persuasion, don't you think there are going to be a lot more of those photos showing black Americans just having a great time with President Trump, hugging and kissing him and kissing some black babies and stuff like that?
Now, is that legal?
I'm not recommending it, by the way, just in case it's illegal.
It's unethical, so don't do it.
But would it work?
In terms of persuasion, if, let's say you're a black voter, you're on the fence, you're not too happy with Biden, but you know, you haven't been sold on Trump.
And then you see a bunch of pictures that you think are real.
Let's say they're AI, but they look real enough.
And you see that other black Americans not only are okay with Trump, But they love him.
Oh my God.
Look at him laughing.
He's at the barbecue.
He's at the barbershop.
Yeah, they're laughing it up.
They're high-fiving.
Well, I don't know how much high-fiving happens in the black community.
Probably not as much as I'm used to.
If you come to a party, I got like a piece of cheese in one hand and I'm high-fiving people with the other.
I feel like if you go to a black party, might be less of that.
Less cheese and high-fiving.
But anyway.
Uh, so I think it would be an excellent, uh, excellently effective dirty trick to show the president being liked by people.
But it would work because our visual, uh, our visual senses dominate our other senses, uh, in terms of how we think about the world.
But on top of that, it would not be just a visual.
It would be a, what do you call it, sort of a group, what's the word for that?
What's the scientific word when you see people that are like you and then you just agree with them because they're like you?
What's that called?
Social proof.
Social proof, right.
So it'd be a good social proof.
And I love the fact that she's just going to go out there and say the AI is, that Trump's an AI.
All right.
So let's talk about that Boeing whistleblower.
You know the story, the Boeing whistleblower had one more day of testimony about Boeing and then was allegedly committed suicide in his car outside a hotel.
So he committed suicide in his car outside a hotel after extending the day of his leave.
That's right.
He extended the time at the hotel.
And paid for it.
Well, I don't know if he paid for it, but he extended his time, and then allegedly killed himself in his truck, because that's how you do it.
That's the normal way you kill yourself, isn't it?
First, you extend your time at the hotel, and then you go kill yourself.
So, let me ask you this.
I don't know much about this field.
But how many people have killed themselves in the morning?
I feel like it's close to zero.
Like, I don't know.
I'll take a fact check on that.
But I'm just sort of looking at my own mind and experience.
I've never had a bad morning.
Morning's usually pretty good.
But if you check in with me at, you know, nine o'clock at night, if things aren't going well, Completely different attitude, right?
So do you think that this guy killed himself in his truck in the morning?
See that?
And here's the other thing... Did he... Did he not want to be found?
Why would you kill yourself in a place that's gonna take a while to find you?
Well, maybe that doesn't matter.
But everything about this looks like a murder.
Looks like a murder.
No way to know.
But on the surface, doesn't track.
Well, there's more people talking about this idea of people who don't hear conversation in their head.
In the comments, how many of you do not hear an ongoing conversation in words in your head that's like a dialogue that's running all the time?
Now, I hear the dialogue all the time.
How many of you do not?
Do not hear the dialogue in your mind like all the time.
Somebody says 7 p.m.
Did it happen in the evening?
Oh, I'm getting a fact check.
I'm getting fact-checked that it happened in the evening at seven o'clock somebody says.
All right so there's some question about the time.
But even if it's 7 p.m., I guess I'd ask the same question.
Yeah, well, I'll bet there's a time of day when it almost always happens.
I'll bet it's after nine o'clock.
Doesn't mean, it doesn't rule it out, but it'd be one of those indications.
Anyway, Talking about mind blindness.
So some of you, I guess maybe up to a third, don't see your language.
But here's the more shocking thing.
You don't see pictures when you close your mind, when you close your eyes.
And there's a test where you look at a red star, and then you close your mind and try to imagine the red star.
And some people can't do it.
That's mind-blowing to me.
Here's something I've always known about myself, but I didn't talk about much.
When I was young, I was not into reading fiction.
And I didn't like movies and TV as much as I should because my imagination was better.
Meaning that I could build entire stories with characters and dialogue in my head and then just watch that.
And then I'd always watch what I wanted to watch.
So when I made the movie in my head, it was like, you know, I'm the hero of the movie.
You know, I kill all the bad guys and I get the woman and stuff like that.
I couldn't explain to people why I was so entertained without being entertained.
Because I can do the whole movie in my head.
Now, that shouldn't be surprising now that you know I have 36 years of a cartooning career, which is literally imagining a scene in my head and then writing it down.
So, it shouldn't be too surprising that I have that specific talent.
But how many of you cannot do that?
So, in my head, I can put Dilbert in any scene and rotate him.
I can rotate him 360.
I'm doing it right now.
In my mind, I'm seeing Dilbert rotating and doing jumping jacks in complete detail.
Just like it's in front of me.
I could trace it.
When I draw, I'm tracing.
Did you know that?
When I draw, I have a blank piece of paper.
I project my mind onto it.
I see the picture and then I trace it.
Now, if you can't see an image in your mind, you probably can't draw.
So that might be one way to tell if people can picture things.
Just ask them to draw it.
And even if you haven't practiced and you don't have drawing talent.
Because have you ever noticed there's some people who don't spend any time learning to draw, but if you hand them a pencil they can draw like a face?
And you think, how the hell did you do that?
You've never even practiced.
It's because they're just tracing.
So our minds are so wildly different.
And we just don't realize it.
We're walking around like we're all the same.
Well, let's talk about RFK Jr.' 's choice for VP.
Aaron Rodgers, the football player, has come up a few times, and now there's a story.
CNN wants to trash him by saying that in 2013, he shared a conspiracy theory in person, but not publicly, just, I guess, one-on-one with a reporter.
And it was about that Sandy Hook thing.
Publicly, he's always treated it like it was exactly what it was, you know, a real event.
So publicly, he has no problems with anything he said publicly about it.
But privately, allegedly, and reportedly, he said, you know, he had some doubts about the legitimacy of it.
Now, I'm not going to say that really happened.
I'm going to say I do not like this standard for reporting.
I don't like the standard.
The things you say in public, Should always supersede anything you said privately.
Even if they're different.
Because the things you say... The things you say in public are what you want people to hear you express.
The things you say in private are often more conspiratorial, or it's just funny, or it's, you know, you're just playing around.
So to be held to that standard of something that you said individually, when you've also said something publicly, that's a bad look.
So CNN, I think this is unethical reporting.
I think it's just unethical.
I think you have to take the public statements, especially if there's more than one.
Take the public statements.
No, that'd be different.
You know, I wouldn't say that for every topic.
You know, if it's a politician who privately said, ah, we're just trying to screw people and then publicly, publicly, you know, so it's a good idea.
That'd be different.
But if you're talking about a private citizen who's just noodling with, you know, about the news and speculating, you don't take that and report it.
That is so low.
That's just low.
Yeah, so CNN, you suck.
Let's talk about the TikTok ban, which should be an easy topic, but boy did it get complicated.
So Rand Paul got into it with Brian Kilmeade about the question of who owns TikTok.
So Rand Paul is sticking with the Technical definition of ownership, as in who owns shares of the company, which is not the Chinese government.
So therefore, says Rand Paul, stop saying that China owns TikTok.
But the real question is who controls it, and there is no debate that TikTok can tell this company to do things, and it has to do it.
So why is Rand Paul Doing this weasel lawyerly, yeah, but technically, technically the ownership is not Chinese.
So why do you keep saying it is when everybody knows that's not relevant?
Why is he doing it?
It's not because he's dumb because he has a long body of work that have proven to us over and over again.
He's one of the smartest.
So why would he do something that's so obviously dumb when we know he's not dumb?
And how about, How about when he treats, let's say, the data and the persuasion of TikTok as if that should be treated the same as our domestic companies like Facebook?
Is there anybody watching this who thinks that you should treat an adversary the same way as a friend?
Does that make sense to anybody?
Why would he even say that out loud in public, that you should treat your adversaries the same as your friends?
Because Facebook, you know, I can disagree with Zuckerberg on any number of things, but he's not my enemy.
I'm pretty sure that Zuckerberg wants what's good for the country, if not the world.
How is he my enemy?
Not at all.
If he does something that, you know, is damaging, you can work with him and he would probably try to fix it.
If China did something that was damaging to the United States, would they fix it?
Or would they say, double down on that, that's working.
How does a smart person, say in public, anything along the lines of treating a domestic company and an adversary country's control of another company, how do you treat that as roughly the same?
That's not honest, is it?
So, the trouble with being smart—by the way, I've had this trouble myself.
Let's see if any of you have had this trouble.
It's hard to be smart and also trusted.
They don't work well together.
Because when you're smart, people think, eh, he's saying the thing I like to hear.
But what's he really mean?
Does he have a clever trick?
You know, if somebody's dumb, you figure you'd know the whole game.
You're like, all right, you probably mean exactly what you say.
But if somebody's smarter than you, or just smart, you think, eh, there might be something more to this.
Could be more cleverness to this than I see.
So anyway, if you can understand why Rand Paul is trying so hard to not act like Rand Paul.
I guess that's the best way to say it.
Why is Rand Paul doing so much work to not be Rand Paul?
Because he doesn't do this.
This is really the opposite of what he does.
So there's something amiss.
Here's the part that we can say for sure.
There's something amiss about the TikTok story.
But let's go on.
So you probably heard in the news two opposite stories, which I think I have the answer to now.
You probably heard somebody say, the bill is specifically about TikTok and it names them by name.
It's a TikTok bill.
So if you think it's going to influence any American companies, well, you're just not reading the bill right.
It says TikTok.
It's a TikTok specific ban.
Is that true?
Let's test your knowledge.
Is it true?
That it names TikTok and it's a TikTok-specific ban.
Yes or no?
Well, turns out that other people say, no, this is a general thing about social media companies and it could allow the president to shut down the X platform if he declares it's doing bad things.
Well, it turns out that both are true.
It is a specific bill aimed at TikTok But then they added in this extra part, and the extra part doesn't name anybody, but says it would also apply to another social media type entity with over, I don't know, a million users.
So it has to be a certain size.
And if they are influenced by an adversary.
Huh.
Influenced.
So it doesn't say owned by an adversary.
Not owned.
So that takes care of, you know, Rand Paul's concern.
So it's not about ownership.
It's about influence.
So suppose you had a American social media company that, I don't know, let's say the owner of that company, we'll just brainstorm.
Let's say there was a social media company in which the owner of the company had other businesses that depended on China.
Would you say that that's a social media company that is influenced by an adversary?
Yes!
No doubt about it.
Yes, that is a social media company that's influenced by an adversary.
No doubt about it.
No doubt about it.
Do I think that therefore the X platform should be banned or changed?
Of course not.
Of course not.
I mean, it's all transparent.
I mean, you can see Musk's business in China.
There's no surprise about any of that.
And you can see what he does on X. And you can, I believe he's published the source code.
So you can, you can see the algorithm, the source code, not of the algorithm.
And you can observe for yourself if it's pro-China.
I don't see a lot of pro-China content on X. Do you?
So the reality is, it doesn't seem to express itself in anything I can notice.
But what if Biden said it did?
What if Biden said, you know, there's a lot of posts on their network, that X platform, seeing a lot of stuff that even though China didn't say you have to do it, I feel like there's a little bit of a thumb on the scale there.
Maybe it looks a little too pro-China, so we better cut, better ban that X platform.
So, do the people who say it includes other platforms, are they right?
Yes, they are.
Yes, they are.
Because the word, it's written with enough weasel language that you could imagine a president, you know, saying it applies to something else, like X. So, How hard would it be to fix that?
Here's the other thing you should look forward to do today.
The disagreement over the ban, not every person, the Rand Polls and the Masseys have, I think, different issues, but one of the biggest complaints about the ban legislation is that it would maybe apply to other things, not TikTok.
How hard would that be to fix?
Let me show you the total effort to fix that and make the bill completely acceptable to 100% of Americans.
It goes like this.
Let's see, where's that one paragraph that says it could apply to any other company that meets a certain threshold?
Oh, there it is.
There you go.
That's it.
And then you vote on it.
And then, now your bill would be different from the House, right?
So you'd have that change, and then the process allows that.
Our process allows that one of the Houses, you know, modifies and approves, but then they work it out in some kind of committee or something.
Am I right?
That's how the process works, right?
So we're acting like there's this big problem with the bill, and they literally have to line out one paragraph.
It's not connected to anything else.
It's just by itself and it's totally offensive and it doesn't get to the issue at hand.
Later, if they wanted some other legislation that affected domestic company, maybe if they have an argument, but we have a TikTok problem.
Now here's, here's the other argument I'm hearing from allegedly smart people.
We have to take care of all of the social media bias, you know, not just picking this one.
What?
How does that make sense?
So we have one problem that we could solve easily, just by voting on the ban.
You know, get rid of that one paragraph, but then vote on it.
So we've got one easily solvable problem with an adversary.
And then there's the domestic stuff, which is not easily solvable.
And doesn't have anywhere near the same level of risk, because they're our friends.
They disagree on politics, in some cases.
But Zuckerberg is my friend, he's not my enemy, right?
We could just disagree on politics.
So, watching smart people pretend that you can't solve the easy problem, because you don't know how to solve the unrelated hard problem?
That's not what smart people do.
Anywhere in the world.
Every smart person acts the same way.
Oh, I have one big immediate problem I can solve easily?
I'll solve that, and then I'll go work on the other ones.
Nobody waits to solve all problems before you solve the easy one.
Nobody.
And yet, there are adult human beings walking around telling us that that's the ordinary way to do things.
It's never been ordinary.
It's never happened.
Nobody's ever acted like that.
It doesn't even make any sense to connect these two things, the domestic and the foreign.
But then China is throwing in a little wrinkle, and they're indicating that they'd rather stop serving America than to sell the American business.
Now, knowing that at this stage of things people would bluff, So ByteDance might be bluffing, and that, you know, if you said, you know, your option is to get $30 billion or not get $30 billion, whatever the price is, they'll take the $30 billion.
But China, who by the way, Rand Paul does not own TikTok, but seems to have some undue influence over them, despite not owning them.
How could that be possible?
So I'm just doing my Rand Paul expression.
Me listening to Rand Paul.
Sure.
By the way, Rand Paul is brilliant.
So whatever's going on has nothing to do with his brain being defective.
We don't know what's going on, but it's not because he's dumb.
All right.
So I don't know if China's bluffing.
Maybe in the end they would do it.
But in my opinion, there is no way that China will allow it to happen.
And the reason I say that is, how in the world is China going to allow some other company to have their source code?
Who thinks that's going to happen?
Do you think that China is going to allow TikTok to exist while taking the same source code?
And all the data about Americans and forming a competing company with their source code?
And then everybody can look at the source code and see what it was?
That's not gonna happen!
Who thinks that's gonna happen?
Well, apparently former Treasury Secretary Mnuchin thinks so.
He says he's putting together a consortium to buy TikTok.
Does anybody think that that could actually happen?
How many of you think that in the real world, a portion of TikTok can be purchased and just run as its own company?
It's called licensing?
Yeah, you could imagine a licensing model.
I don't know what you'd be licensing though.
Yeah, I mean, I see where you're going on that.
All right, Israel wants to talk.
There's always an Israel conspiracy on every topic.
All right, so that's happening.
So I'm going to predict that there will not be a TikTok purchase.
Now, here's another thing they could do.
Here's something that could be done.
Suppose, just supposing, Suppose TikTok said, we're going to close the American business and we're not going to sell it to you.
But here's what we will sell to you.
The American data.
Because they wouldn't be able to use it much anymore.
Well, they still have it, but they could sell a copy of the data.
So what if they sold all the user characteristics and data to an American company since Instagram?
And say, let's say Instagram said, hey, we will take every one of you American users.
We will give you the same user account that you had on TikTok.
You don't even have to change your name.
It'll automatically be there.
And all of the American, but not the others, the American users who are also following you will come with you.
Their accounts will also be automatically populated into Instagram.
And we'll give you an Instagram Reels kind of experience with whatever content you bring with you or put there.
So it could be maybe a combination of, let's say, posts that somebody's already made, you know, from their account, their characteristics that would show you what kind of things you want to feed to them in the future, although you wouldn't even need that.
And they don't have to do any work.
It's automatic.
Nobody has to sign up for anything.
You just take all of their signups and you just duplicate them.
Now, that would allow China to sell the business, in a sense, without selling any code.
Because there's no way they're going to sell their code.
That's not going to happen.
So would that work?
Now, the problem is that it would give extra power to Instagram and Facebook.
Meta.
But it would work.
Wouldn't it?
Is there some hybrid situation where you can take the business part of the accounts and the information and the people and the profiles, move them with their users?
So they come with already 100,000 users, just like they had before, but none of the foreign ones.
Most of the Americans have American followers, I'm guessing.
Wouldn't you say?
Most Americans on TikTok, most of their followers would be Americans.
Not, when I say most, 80%, I'm guessing.
So there is probably some way to do that, but it would be putting a lot of power and constraint in one hand.
All right, the Biden impeachment is off.
I guess there was a, Republicans were looking into the whole Biden business situation to see if Joe Biden was benefiting from the foreign actions of Hunter.
I guess there's not enough information, so they're gonna drop it.
You should know that two expert witnesses to the House GOP's first impeachment hearing, Included Jonathan Turley and Bruce Dubinsky, who both said there was not enough evidence of wrongdoing to support articles of impeachment.
So, Turley is one of those rare people in the public eye who is willing to take stances that are on both sides of the political divide, just depending on what makes sense.
Very rare.
Very rare.
So he's willing to tell the Republicans what they didn't want to hear, because it just happens to be true, which is there wasn't enough evidence.
Now, I agree with Turley.
I did not personally ever see enough evidence that I think Biden could be charged or impeached.
That was always my take.
Now, I was open to maybe they find something, but I didn't see anything.
And the problem is that this indirect, the indirect way that the family members did things and, you know, when he was in office and when he wasn't and, you know, how the money flowed, there would always be enough of an argument that you probably wouldn't prevail.
Now do I think that Biden himself was financially benefiting from these foreign deals?
Of course.
Of course.
It's obvious.
Everybody knows that.
So there's no doubt about what was happening.
I don't think there's any fact question that the money was flowing from Biden to the big guy.
No doubt.
But to find the actual crime, I agree.
I agree with Turley.
It's short of what I would want to take on a president.
Now, again, let's be consistent.
If this were reversed, and this were Trump, would I have the same opinion?
I think so.
I think so.
I tend to be soft on presidents, meaning that if we're going to lawfare our presidents, it's just bad for the public.
So I do, I think that the time to check them out is while they're running.
The time to investigate is not once they get in office and they're doing a few things you like, right?
Once they're in office, I only care about the job.
So I don't want a whole lot of impeaching of Republicans or Democrats, even if you think there's a pretty good shot.
Don't do it.
That's not helping me.
You do it before, and if you miss it, well, then you just judge the person on their job performance.
Yeah.
Now, we don't have any question about whether or not Something sketchy and unethical happened.
But just, you know, don't put a lot of presidents in jail or impeach them if you don't need to.
All right.
Apparently, the transcript of Biden talking to special counsel Hur, H-U-R, is available to some people.
I haven't seen it yet.
But apparently, if you read the transcript, the question of Biden's brain is really well settled.
Apparently it's horrifying to see him in action answering questions in the text.
So yeah, so at least one person who wrote on hot air said it's just a hot mess and he's clearly not capable.
Do you think everybody who reads this is going to have the same opinion?
Do you think when the Democrats look at it, they're going to say, he's perfectly fine, I don't see a problem here?
Some will.
Schiff will, and Swalwell will, and Jamie Raskin will, because they're the third caucus, and they'll say anything.
So, here's maybe the biggest story, but it's so complicated that you may not fully appreciate how big this is.
So as you know, Mike Benz has been telling us about the so-called blob, you know, the intelligence people and all these non-government organizations and Soros funding and the Democrats doing this and that, and it's real complicated stuff, but all of it seems to be related to, or a lot of it, to censorship.
But now there's like the mother of all censorship fines, things you didn't know about.
So I can't give you the entire details here.
I'll give you a summary as much as I can.
The summary is there's a massive American brainwashing operation that started around 2016, and we now have all the details of it.
But when you read the story, it will be framed as censorship.
So it's censorship on the surface, but it's really censorship for the purpose of brainwashing.
And I think that when we call it censorship, we don't do ourselves a favor, because censorship feels like sort of the ordinary back and forth of deciding what gets published and what's true.
It feels like ordinary when we complain about censorship.
This is massive brainwashing.
The censorship is in the service of brainwashing.
That's not subjective.
This is exactly, literally what it was.
A massive brainwashing operation on the domestic audience.
So here's the story.
There's this group called USAID, that's their acronym, the U.S.
Agency for International Development, Center on Democracy, Human Rights and Governance, they've got a big name, and they'd created an internal disinformation primer They showed that they were trying to work with the private sector to get them to censor stuff they thought needed to be censored.
Now, the story is the massive scope of this.
So, for a number of years, our government, through this entity, has been trying to influence media and private sectors to get rid of what they would call misinformation, but of course, it's just censorship.
Anyway, they endorsed an advertiser outreach.
In other words, this government entity was trying to get advertisers to not advertise on places that they didn't think were credible.
In other words, places that weren't Democrat organs.
This is really happening.
And by the way, it's not the past.
This is still happening.
This is happening now.
It's been happening for a long time, but still now.
I guess they recommended that Google's redirect method for pre-bunking.
Now, pre-bunking is where somebody's looking for some conspiracy theory they heard about and they want to find out more, but instead of showing them that search result, they give you a search result that debunks it.
So you see the debunk before you read the story.
Is that censorship?
Or is that brainwashing?
That's brainwashing.
You know, tactically, you could call it censorship.
Like, I get it.
It fits the definition.
But the purpose is brainwashing.
Like, the larger purpose is to make you think something's true that may not be true.
So, I recommend that you read this.
I reposted this this morning.
From Owen.
Thank you, Owen.
And you really just have to read it to understand the scope.
So it is literally true that your government has undertaken a massive brainwashing operation, primarily to brainwash Republicans into not believing the things they believe.
That's a real thing.
It's a real thing.
It's kind of head-shaking.
But whenever you hear that there's, oh, in California, listen to this, California and some other states, they've created a media literacy courses.
Media literacy.
What do you think they teach?
Oh, I'm going to guess the CNN is real news.
The New York Times is real news.
But don't you look at Breitbart.
Don't you open that Fox News app, because that's where all the fake news is, and it's going to get you.
Don't you think that's what it is?
Of course it is.
Of course it is.
That's exactly what it is.
Now, I did sit down and spend some time trying to write my own media literacy course for kids.
And you don't have to write very long before you realize it can't be done.
Because the truth is way too rugged for children.
Here's the truth.
First line of my media literacy course.
All of the news is fake, and your parents are too dumb to know the difference.
Your teachers are mostly partisans, and you cannot rely on them for anything about the world.
That's first sentence.
Who's going to buy that?
Nobody!
Nobody.
There's no mechanism to teach children the truth.
Because the constraints on giving them the truth are extraordinary.
And part of it is we believe that children can't be trusted with the truth.
Right?
There's a lot of stuff that a good parent will not tell a child.
There's a lot of stuff you say, all right, we're not going to talk about that, or don't put that in your head, or Think this, don't think that.
So the process of raising a child is the process of brainwashing them.
It's just you're trying to brainwash them into good habits, not bad.
So brainwashing is the universal process that's going on with kids.
And if I gave them actual media literacy, it would ruin everything.
They would become bad citizens.
Because I would teach them that all the news is fake.
Because all the news is fake.
Yeah, so there's no way you can get that published.
Who's going to publish it?
In fact, if I did write that, and I even got somebody to publish it, it would be added to California's media literacy course as another thing you shouldn't look at.
Right?
Suppose I made my own literacy, media literacy class for young people, and I gave it away for free.
And then let's say it trended on X and became a big thing and everybody started talking about it.
They would have, California would have to add it by name to the list of things you shouldn't trust.
That would happen.
You know that would happen.
So yeah, I can't get there from there.
All right, Senator Schumer got in trouble for seeming to call for a new government in Israel, which is none of his business, because that's not what America does.
We don't tell other countries democracies.
We don't tell other democracies to go have another election.
That's a little bit over the line.
But on the other hand, He also is a free citizen in America and he's got an opinion.
He's got free speech.
So I'm a little bit mixed on this one, honestly.
On one hand, no, it's not appropriate for the United States to lean on Israel to change their government.
That's only up for Israel.
Nobody gets a vote.
Anywhere but Israel.
On the other hand, that's his opinion.
That's his opinion.
And I respect it.
Yeah, I don't agree with it.
Like, I don't think it's the best thing for Israel to do.
But I definitely support his right to say it in any job that he holds.
And he did.
So, I just don't agree with it.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, this completes my amazing, amazing podcast.
It's been a heck of a year, past year.
Quite a bit has happened in the past year, but probably nothing like the next nine months.
We're gonna have a fun ride.
So I hope you stay with me through the whole process, and we're gonna learn a lot.
But I'll tell you one thing that's really different this time, that's way different than any other election cycle.
The Republicans at least, I don't think Democrats know it, but Republicans have seen all the gears of the machine.
If you talk to anybody who doesn't lean left, The conversation will be, hey, what do you think the summer hoax will be?
Because we all know it's coming.
We're all waiting for the summer hoax.
Am I right?
Every one of you is waiting for a summer hoax.
And you're saying, who will it be?
Black Lives Matter?
Antifa?
Or are they already trying to get the Patriot Front?
Or are they jamming up some other fake organization?
Because they need some kind of fake group to protest.
So which one will it be?
And we're all just watching the gears of the machine now.
So now you see the TikTok conversation?
Have you ever seen a conversation about a bill that's being proposed that was as rich and realistic as the TikTok conversation?
Because to me, you're watching people being bought off right in front of your eyes.
Obviously.
And when I say bought off, I don't mean that they're individually getting money.
I mean that there's something good for the political party or their political ambitions.
That's the bar off I'm talking about.
Not personal enrichment.
I have no evidence of anything like that.
So, yeah, I think watching the TikTok debate gives you every gear of the machine.
You can see the whole thing.
And it's all transparent now.
And I don't think that ever was the case before.
You can see that the media Now, we've all become kind of experts at detecting that the headline doesn't match the story, detecting that when they report the good economic news, you know a few months later it's going to be revised down.
We know that when they say, hey, GDP is up, and they don't tell you that the way you got there is by running the debt up to ruinous levels, we all see it now.
Am I right?
We see the NGOs and the censorship, we see the finger Being put on things by the social media companies?
These are all the things we only speculated about before.
If you think how simple times were in 2016, when you didn't know how anything worked, like I thought we were a republic in 2016.
Didn't you?
Or what do we call it?
A constitutional federal republic or whatever the official name is.
I thought we actually were one.
I didn't realize that we haven't been one for maybe ever.
That we're basically run by the intelligence groups for anything important, right?
The intel people don't care about what post office name has, but they definitely care about, you know, a war.
So they're running that stuff.
They're running the border.
I also thought that the border was some kind of a problem with crime and drugs and cartel and we couldn't stop them.
And now it's obvious that the cartel is working with the United States, otherwise it wouldn't look the way it looks.
It's obvious that we use them to control Central and South America, and they're just the muscle that we use down there, because we always pair up with the muscle.
I didn't know that.
In 2016 that wouldn't have been obvious at all, but now it's really obvious.
Would you agree?
Would you agree that you can see all the gears of the machine now?
And I think, and then COVID really revealed a lot.
COVID told us for sure that all of the experts can be lying at the same time.
We didn't know that for sure.
We suspected it.
You suspected it, right?
Because you knew that money was going to be a big gating factor and nobody wanted to ruin their career.
You knew it, but you didn't know it, know it.
And now you, now you know it.
You don't have to speculate.
You don't have to wonder.
No, it's just the money.
That's it.
So then you look at climate change.
You say, but climate change, all the experts are on the same side.
Yeah, they're all wearing masks.
There's your kill shot.
But Scott, don't you realize that 97% of scientists say climate change is a huge problem?
You just lean in and say, how many of them are wearing masks right now?
How many?
Tell me.
How many have a mask on?
Tell me.
No, no, don't change the subject.
Tell me.
How many of them are wearing masks?
And now we can see through it all.
You can see that everything from the nutrition science through climate science was always fake.
It was always fake.
And this is really different.
And I think that we can see Trump now in a way that we couldn't see him before.
Because now you say to yourself, all right, you know, maybe he's all this dangerous chaos guy and all this other stuff, but you know what he does when he's in office?
He just wants to do more of that.
So a lot of the guesswork of how crazy and dangerous he would be, we don't have to guess anymore.
We just watch.
We saw it.
So I think that we're probably in a much better place than we've ever been in terms of understanding our situation.
And that should translate into good things.
Eventually.
But we're in a situation where predicting anything a year in advance makes no sense anymore.
