All Episodes
March 21, 2024 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:26:51
Episode 2420 CWSA 03/21/24

My book Reframe Your Brain, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/3bwr9fm8 Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: Politics, Seth McFarland, Ireland Free Speech, Batshit Crazy Women Stories, MacKenzie Scott, California Math Standards, Stanford Jo Boaler, Julian Assange Plea Offer, Kari Lake SCOTUS, Maricopa Voting Machines, President Trump, Leticia James, 8th Amendment, Black Swan Ops, George Floyd, Google Bloodbath Definition, Tony Bobulinski Testimony, AOC Liar Eyes, Turd Caucus, Israel Hamas War, 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

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Oh, that's some good simultaneous sipping.
Possibly the best I've had all day.
Well, we've got themes, we've got stories, we've got craziness.
Oh, we've got it all this morning.
First, a little update on Neuralink.
So apparently there's the first, you probably heard this already, but the first person to have a Neuralink brain chip that is helping that person control a computer with his mind.
And apparently it's working.
There's a real human being with a chip in his skull who's controlling a cursor on the screen with his mind.
Now if you don't think that's cool, Elon Musk says that something called blindsight is next.
So fairly soon the next thing they're going to take on is to see if they can make a blind person able to see.
And you really want to get freaked out?
It includes blind people who have never seen, who have never had sight.
And somehow they think they can give sight to somebody who's never had it by presumably putting the sight signals directly into the brain somehow.
I don't know the details, but just think about the fact that Elon Musk is out there putting chips in brains and rockets in space and building electric cars.
versions.
I don't know what you did this year, but Yeah, he did well.
I won the internet, somebody says.
Oh, I don't know about that.
Well, here's an update.
Let's file this under the least surprising news ever.
See if you can top this for least surprising news.
The Pope is opposed to violence.
No, that's not it.
That's the one I always use as a joke.
Once a year, the news reports that the Pope is still very much against violence.
And it makes the headline.
Here's the one that is even more obvious than the Pope is against violence.
Turns out that the billionaire's sister-in-law of Mitch McConnell, Tesla tragically went in the lake and she was trapped and drowned.
Turns out she was super drunk.
Huh.
Well, I certainly didn't see that coming.
Yeah, that's exactly how this happens, being super drunk.
However, in an irony which Should not be amusing in any way, because it's all tragic.
Tesla has released their new self-driving software.
It's the best version of self-driving software.
And apparently this one's a big one.
Now, I don't know the details yet, but apparently this version of the Tesla self-driving software should be really amazing.
Now, I don't know if that gets you to the point Where a drunk driver could make it home?
Or should?
But are we at an inflection point where if you know that you're somebody who's going to drink and drive?
And most of us know that, right?
It doesn't sneak up on you.
I don't think it sneaks up on you.
I think people who know they like to go out and have too many drinks and also drive home know exactly who they are.
Do you think that the world would be safer if such people could start their car and fall asleep and the car just drives them home?
Or is the self-driving car technology not quite good enough that taking a sleeping drunk home is still a good idea?
Well, we might be close to the, you know, the pass, what do you call it, the crossover point, where the self-driving car is safer than somebody trying to drive their own car after a couple of drinks.
Now, I am here to tell you, and I'm not going to name names, I do know an individual who has, for a while now, fallen asleep and let her car drive her home.
True story.
I actually know somebody who falls asleep in their car and lets the car drive home.
And that's before this update.
Now, I don't know how safe that is.
It doesn't sound as safe as it needs to be in my opinion, but I can tell you there's at least one person who shouldn't be, probably shouldn't be driving at all, who has found that the Tesla keeps her alive.
Now, I'm hoping this new update really makes a difference and keeps people safer.
But in all seriousness, the entire world of drunk driving could be going away.
It could be that drunk driving just will be a weird thing of some people who just snuck up on them and they didn't know they'd have a drink or something.
But it could be that 80% of it just goes away in five years because nobody has to drive home.
Imagine if you didn't need to call anybody.
You could just wander out and get in your car, and it would just take you home all the way to your driveway.
I know.
I would buy alcohol stocks.
Well, here's the beginning of my theme.
I've got two themes today.
Seth MacFarlane, the brilliant creator of The Family Guy and Many talents.
A great singer.
He sings the classics.
He's been involved in movies, both acting and writing, directing and producing and stuff.
Super, super talented guy.
However, it's really hard to talk to people who don't know anything that's happening in the real world.
So, here's something that Seth said in a podcast.
He was talking about how People like the New York Times reporters, they're trained in journalism, they went to college for it, you know, these are serious people working at a serious platform.
And Seth was bemoaning the fact that everyone thinks they're an expert now, and all you have to do is be a podcaster and you can be an independent journalist.
And he worries that the high ethical standard of reporting, which he was used to, may be eroded by all these new independent voices.
Now, what does that even sound like to your brain?
For most of you who are watching this, you're just going, what?
Is that like a real human being with an actual opinion who is smart and successful?
How in the world could you have the impression that the news is still real?
Who has that?
Who still has that opinion that the news is still real?
All right.
Here's my first theme of the day.
All right.
I'm just doing a little tweak here to see your comments.
Huh.
It's going to fight me today.
But oh, my God.
The interface is just giving me all kinds of random results now.
Really?
It's not going to show me today's show?
Is that really happening?
There we go.
Huh.
All right, I have to solve this for my own benefit because I can't tell why the interface is giving me two completely different results.
So I can see the later show before the current show.
Oh, I put the wrong date on it.
Did I put the wrong date on it?
Is that what I did?
Did I date it the 18th instead of the 21st?
I can't see your comments because they're all dead.
And so the locals interface is just fucking just garbage right now for, uh, I hate to say it because I know in stock and rumble, but this just doesn't work at all.
All right.
Let's see if I can.
No, that is the pre-show.
It looks like I just put the wrong date on it.
It's my date problem.
No, that's not working.
This shows me live.
All right, well, I don't know why I put the wrong date on it.
If you don't know, I have this date-related problem, a calendar-related problem, so I actually, no, I can't fix it.
It's just going to be what it's going to be.
I can't fix it.
Once the feed starts, it's basically... All right.
So, well, I fucked that up today.
Sorry, locals.
You won't see the show today because I put the wrong title on it.
So you probably won't know which ones to click on.
That's on me.
Sorry.
Hope you can find it on another feed.
Anyway, Seth MacFarlane still thinks that the news is real.
How could you have a conversation with somebody about politics when they think the news is real?
Have you noticed that that's just impossible?
Yeah, it's like just impossible.
Ireland's lost their freedom, or they're well on the way to doing it, their freedom of speech.
Michael Schellenberger is talking about this.
So Ireland's Prime Minister resigned, but they're still trying to get a law passed over there by the end of the year, in which if you say things online that the government doesn't like, they can come to your house and take all your devices and put you in jail, and look at all your messages.
So Ireland is right on the verge of, in a democratic system-ish, they're going to vote away their own rights.
Apparently that's going to happen.
They're going to vote away their own right of free speech.
So that if you say something the government doesn't like, they can come arrest you.
Now, as Schellenberger points out, this is probably a test case.
Because if this works in Ireland, You might see a lot more of it because certainly what we're seeing is whoever's in power seems to be turning off free speech.
Because I think there is a fundamental problem with you can't have the people who are in charge stay in charge as long as you have a free internet.
And people can find out things.
So stability almost requires that the population doesn't know what's going on.
So the only way you can keep stability, be you a dictator or be you a fake republic like we are, Um, the only way he was stable is by not letting the public know what's going on.
Now, back in the sixties, the public watched the regular news, which we presume at this point was all just, you know, all but managed by the CIA, basically.
So we thought we were watching real news, but we were totally uninformed.
You know, we thought a single shooter, rogue person killed Kennedy.
Basically there's nothing that we believe that was true when I grew up, but we didn't know it.
Now we actually know it.
So now we actually know it.
What's going to happen now?
Well, the obvious only response to the fact that the public found a way to know what's true is to shut down free speech.
So if they can do it in Ireland and it sticks, you should expect that that will happen in the United States and that people like me will be put in jail for saying fairly ordinary things.
Yeah.
So I'm actually risking jail just by doing this.
And now that would sound crazy, except that Peter Navarro is in jail, Trump is getting law-fared, there are over a thousand J6ers who are being, you know, illegally put in jail, in my opinion, illegally.
So yes, the complete lack of freedom of speech is, I think it's unstoppable.
I don't think there's any power that's big enough to stop free speech from completely going away.
But, if you want to feel better about it, I don't think we ever really had it.
We've never really had anything but the ability to say what the government agreed with, right?
You know that whistleblower, the Boeing guy?
He had the freedom to say whistleblower things, and then he was found dead in his car under suspicious circumstances.
And you know, JFK, when he was president, He had the freedom of speech to say whatever he wanted and his head was blown off in suspicious circumstances.
So we've never probably, probably never had free speech.
We just, it wasn't as obvious.
So it might not even be a change.
Well, Endwokeness's account, which is just a gem, says that somebody called Kraft Sports They listed the job qualifications for a sports management associate, and they said specifically that white people are not being considered.
Can you imagine that?
Put it in writing.
Because it's in writing.
Now, they don't say white people are not considered, they say that they're looking for, you know, people of color.
Which is the same thing.
Now, that could not be more illegal.
Do you think that Seth MacFarlane thinks that DEI and the push for diversity, do you think that he is aware that this is anything but good?
Do you think that if you were Seth MacFarlane, do you think that people actually could get diversity without breaking the law?
Here's a real basic test to see if somebody understands anything about the world.
Do you believe that all of the corporations in America, if they tried really hard, could improve their diversity up to the level where it represents the population at large?
If someone says yes, if they try hard enough, then they don't really understand anything.
Because that's not true.
The only thing that would happen is you would force companies to discriminate against white people so they could hit their goal faster and they don't get fired themselves.
So all the white people would scramble to discriminate against white people who are trying to get jobs where they already work, and that's the only thing that would happen every time.
Now, if you didn't know that, You wouldn't understand anything about race relationship in the United States.
Would you agree?
If you didn't understand the basic math of the supply of adults who have all the right qualifications is too low to improve your diversity without lowering your standards and that you'd have to lower your standards quite a bit.
If you didn't know that, how could you have a meaningful conversation about this topic?
Do you think Seth MacFarlane knows that?
I don't know.
Can't read his mind, but I doubt it.
So my advice for anybody who is working around craft sports, if you're a white guy, you should stay away from that.
So I wouldn't go anywhere near a company like that.
In fact, if I were a white person working at Kraft Sports, I would be putting my resume out right away because they've already signaled that you're not qualified for promotion because obviously they've got a DEI thing that they're servicing.
So if you're a white person working at Kraft Sports, you should get the fuck away from that company.
That's my advice.
Just get the fuck away because it's not a safe place for you to be.
And they've signaled that pretty clearly.
Well, let's talk about batshit crazy women.
This is my batshit crazy women report.
I'm starting with a relationship expert whose name doesn't matter.
It's some blonde woman on social media who's telling you that everybody's wrong and she knows what makes relationships work.
And here's what she says.
She's explaining why women won't have sex with their husbands.
Now, she tells us that she's got many qualifications in this exact field, relationships and psychology.
And she's had many, many thousands, I think, of clients.
So she really has her handle on this domain.
Here's what she says.
The reason that women don't want to have sex with their husbands is that they don't feel safe.
So there's something that the husband is doing that makes them feel not safe.
And when they don't feel safe, they don't feel attracted.
So, that's mad sheer crazy.
That sounds to me like somebody who doesn't know anything about anything.
I don't know how you can live in the real world and have that opinion.
Let me give it to you in, you know, full black bill.
If a man does everything a woman wants in a relationship, she loses respect for him, and then doesn't want to have sex with him.
Would you agree?
If he does everything she wants, like he's just a vessel?
You'd agree with that, right?
It's obvious.
Everybody would agree with that.
If he does everything, he's just a simp, the woman loses respect for him, then loses sex appeal.
So that's if he does everything she wants.
Suppose the man doesn't do A number of important things that the woman wants.
What she do then.
She shops for a better man who will do the things that she wants.
So women have two conditions and they're both failure conditions.
Man who does everything they want that's not attractive.
A man who doesn't want to do what they want which makes them unhappy and look for a man who will.
But such man doesn't exist except the one that they won't they won't respect once he starts doing all the things.
So How in the world can you be a relationship expert and think that the reason that women aren't having sex with their husbands is that they're not feeling safe?
That is so far from any reality which I've ever lived in.
It's just the nature of relationships that if you put two people together, you can measure the fall in chemistry that makes them attracted.
You can just take any two random people who are wildly attracted, put them together and make them married, Make them live the life of a married person, where you're just pecking on each other and bothering each other about what you're doing, you know, the normal thing.
They will lose interest in each other.
You don't need any of this, don't feel safe stuff.
Ridiculous.
So when I, when I watched the, I'm really addicted to the relationship advice on Instagram.
Cause it's almost universally terrible.
It is, and they all have this earnest, I-figured-it-out voice.
Does it bother you that the Instagram influencer experts, they all have that same kind of similar, I'm an expert, I-figured-it-out voice, and then you listen to them and it's like, oh my god, you're stupid.
Have you lived in the real world for a minute?
All right, so that's story number one, Batshit Crazy Women.
Batshit Crazy Women, story number two.
The ex-wife of Jeff Bezos, who had many billions of dollars because of the divorce, Mackenzie Scott Bezos, has already donated over $17 billion to a whole bunch of causes, mostly racism-related causes.
Now, do you think she made the world a better place?
By giving to a whole bunch of probably Soros-related entities, and taking the fruits of her husband's good work, and distributing them in the worst possible fucking way.
As Ashley St.
Clair said on X, Mackenzie Scott Bezos is going to win the award for quote, most danger done with charitable donations ever.
And then Ashley says, all because she really hates her ex-husband.
Elon Musk gave that a little bullseye comment, so we agreed with it.
I won't go so far as to say she hates her ex-husband.
That's a little mind-readery.
I don't like to go as far as mind-reading.
But does it seem that she's doing something that seems closer to self-harm than trying to help?
To me, it looks closer to self-harm and taking the rest of us with her.
So, it looks like she has some guilt to work out, maybe.
Can't just spend her money and be happy about it.
So, we don't know what's going on in her mind, but the giving away $17 billion in a way that I can guarantee she has not deeply researched could be one of the worst things that's ever happened to America.
Do you think she knows that?
I doubt it.
Do you think if Seth MacFarlane found out she gave away $17 billion and she's on his team, do you think he would regard that as, well, that's good?
My team, Democrat stuff, got lots more extra money.
That should be good.
What do you think he thinks of that?
Do you think he understands that almost everything she gave money to, the primary category, was about race relations?
Which means making it worse.
Because that's what all the programs do at this point.
No.
Probably doesn't know.
Bat shit crazy woman story number three.
Destroying the country.
There's a Stanford professor Uh, name, do-do-do-do, uh, something bowler.
Where's her name?
Eh, it doesn't matter.
Um, but anyway, it's a bashfully crazy white woman who's been leading this big effort to, uh, lower the math standards in California.
And the reason for lowering the standards is to make it easier for people who are bad at math To do well in math, meaning it's a diversity kind of a situation.
Now, do you think that leading the charge to make Californian children less good at math is based on her willingness and research and knowing that this is good for the world?
No, obviously this is terrible.
It's terrible for the world.
You know, even Bill Ackman, very Democrat, Yeah, you basically just did a head-shaking post.
It's like, what?
What?
I mean, obviously this is a bad idea.
Worst idea ever!
To lower the math standards.
Now, something will probably happen with math education just because of AI.
There'll be less need for, you know, people to be trained up to be math teachers, if you don't need any math teachers.
So something will happen in that pretty quickly.
At the moment, she stands accused of 52 instances of having some entity she's involved with supporting research that is bullshit.
So some of the things that they believe their research or the research they have access to has proven, the notions that taking time tests causes math anxiety, mixing students of different academic levels boosts achievement, students have been found to perform better when teachers don't grade their work, Are you kidding me?
I'm just looking at somebody's weird comments here.
All right, there's some other issues being worked out in the comments here on Locals, but I hope you're working it out, whatever that is.
So there's one woman Who's trying to lower math accomplishment in California for the benefit of those who are bad at math.
And how did she support her conclusions?
Some say with bad research, which is usually based on bad math.
So bad math is being used to come up with some bad math policies to make everybody bad at math.
And that's the sort of thing that a man doesn't do.
No, I'm just kidding.
But my topic is batshit crazy women who are making the world worse.
Why would you do this?
Like what would even motivate you to want to work hard to make math standards lower?
Is anybody dumb enough to think that makes the world better?
Now, I do agree that there should be a high school path where you don't have to be good at math.
I'm very much on the page that not everybody should become a math teacher, right?
There may be 20% of students, I don't know what the ratio is, but maybe 20% need to take math to a higher level because they might use it someday, but 80% total waste of time.
So I kind of agree with at least a little bit of the thinking there that a lot of it's a waste of time and it would just make minority students in some cases look like they're not achieving when the thing they're not achieving is something they wouldn't use anyway.
So there's something to it, I just don't think it's being executed right.
Meanwhile, the Texas Permanent School Fund, I guess it's a big fund in Texas, is taking the money away from BlackRock and State Street because they've got these weird requirements for the companies that they invest in, that they have climate policies that these guys like.
And racial equity audits and stuff like that.
And Texas says that's all bullshit.
And we're not going to give money to anybody who's involved with that stuff.
So Vivek is talking about this.
So this is good.
So maybe Texas is setting a standard by which it becomes hard for the bad guys to operate because they don't get as much funding.
Maybe.
Well here's the weirdest story.
If you're following the whole Julia Assange thing and for years the United States has been trying to extradite him over here and people think he'll be killed when he gets here or put in jail forever.
But now there's talk, and I don't know that this is true, so this might be a, this is an unreliable report.
But there's a report that there's some effort to To have him plead guilty to a misdemeanor and then be a free man.
The misdemeanor would be mishandling classified information, which is completely bullshit.
He's just mishandling.
But I guess that's what the misdemeanor plea downs are.
They're not based on reality.
So let me ask the obvious question.
If this is being considered now, Is it not because people think it makes sense?
And if it makes sense now, why didn't it always make sense?
Why didn't it always make sense to plead it down?
It just suddenly started making sense when nothing else changed?
Well, maybe what's changed is the election coming up.
Maybe what changed is because the Biden administration is locking up, basically locking up journalists They don't want one more high-profile story about the Biden administration wanting to take out a journalist.
So it could be about the election, but it also could be that they want to free him so they can more easily kill him.
It could be that what they really need to do is kill him and it's harder to get to him in prison.
Although Epstein suggests it's not impossible.
But the other possibility is that the CIA or somebody wants him free so that they can monitor him and figure out who his network is and what they know.
So they can take down the whole network.
That's possible.
Yeah.
So I don't believe anything about the story in terms of the stated intentions.
Because I definitely don't believe that they suddenly realized, hey, you know, it'd be a good way to handle this thing.
Why don't we just plead it down to a misdemeanor charge?
No, nobody just came up with that idea suddenly.
And then everybody said, oh, oh, pleading to lower offenses.
We'd never thought about that.
No, obviously there's some kind of scheme involved here and I don't think it's good.
Do you think that there's a scheme involved that's good for Assange?
No.
Whatever this is, is probably very bad for Assange.
Probably.
Don't know for sure, but all indications are he's in more trouble, not less.
Well, Bill Mlusion is reporting that 200,000 deportation cases were thrown out by immigration judges since the start of the Biden administration.
Here's the reason why.
Because DHS didn't file the required notice to appear in court in time.
That's right.
Your government didn't file the right paperwork, so 200,000 people who were ready to be deported just won't be.
Does that sound like an accident, or does that sound intentional?
It's intentional, of course.
Well, intentional in the sense that nobody was trying too hard to make it not happen, because they don't really care, apparently.
Apparently there's more effort to bring people in than there is to stop people from coming in.
All right.
Here's some new information about the 2020 election and the voting machines and the tabulators.
Now I warned you before all these conversations on this topic that everything that's claimed about voting machines and past elections, 95 to 100% of it will turn out to be false.
So this is in that domain.
Doesn't mean it's false.
Doesn't mean it's false.
But if it's like everything else in this domain, it will turn out to be when you find out more about it.
Um, you know, I'm, I'm over the belief that all of our elections are rigged and have been for a long time, but that's different than finding the evidence.
I think it's sort of obvious we don't have real, real elections and haven't for a long time, you know, based on the weight of, you know, circumstantial evidence, which is abundant.
So, but I'll just tell you the story and then you can make your own judgments about the credibility of it.
This is from the Politics Brief publication.
So Carrie Lake and Mark Fincham, so these are two Republicans, they filed this Supreme Court appeal, and here's what they're saying.
There are major developments that would have to do with voting machines, and specifically Maricopa County, where things look sketchy to many people.
So here's the claim, that the voting machines cannot be deemed reliable And they don't meet the constitutional and statutory mandates to guarantee a free and fair elections.
So that the machines are, by their design, not capable of allowing citizens to exercise their constitutional rights because they can't be sure they voted.
Or they can't be sure their vote was counted correctly and tabulated correctly.
Okay?
There's new evidence that shows that Maricopa County, they say, violated state law.
For the election electronic voting systems, including using altered software not certified for use.
So I think if I understand that story, there was testing done on some sample machines with a certain set of software, and then it was certified.
And then after it was certified, they put in different software.
Does that sound okay to you?
Now it could be.
In the world of software, you're always doing updates.
So it could have been the most innocent, normal, routine software update.
But you do have to recertify.
If you put new software in, you're going to have to test it to see if the new software is a virus or intentionally rigged.
And if you don't, can you say that it's certified?
And can you say that it's auditable?
And can you say that it was a good result?
Well, Doesn't seem like it.
All right, there's more.
The Dominion voting systems, they say, and these are systems used in almost 30 states, have a built-in security breach, they claim, enabling malicious actors to take control of the elections.
Specifically, I think what that is, is the storing of the encryption keys in plain text.
Meaning that all the secret stuff that is supposed to be, you know, hard to get to, was not just hard to get to, but it looked like it was intentionally made really, really easy to get to.
Now, we can't really say we have no intention.
We can only look at the design.
But the design appears to be more optimized toward giving away the data to a bad actor than it is to protect the data.
Because you would never put an encryption key In plain text, behind nothing but a Windows sign-on, sign-in, that would give you access to changing the vote.
Right?
So, that doesn't mean, you know, if this allegations proves out that there really was text encryption keys that anybody could get to if they could break through a minor Windows sign-in problem, which is not the biggest problem to solve.
If that's true, it doesn't mean that the election was rigged.
It just means you wouldn't know if it was fair.
All right, what else?
They got these tabulator things, which are, the tabulators are separate from the voting machines, right?
The tabulators are working on paper ballots.
Do I have that right?
So there's tabulators in their voting machines and it's good to keep them separate.
Speaking of ballot tabulation things, there was an extraordinary number of failures at the 223 voting centers in Maricopa on Election Day.
There were 181,000 errors.
A total of 138 of the 223 voting centers show a ballot insertion rejection rate of 20% or more.
38 of the 223 voting centers show a ballot insertion rejection rate of 20% or more.
20% or more of ballots inserted into the counter didn't work.
And I don't know if that means they just do it again or what.
And that rate is a hundred times higher than the acceptable limit.
A hundred times over the limit for acceptable operation.
And acceptable in terms of the vote being reliable.
All right.
And then there was the timing of ballot insertion errors across the county.
There were over 7,000 ballot insertion failures in almost every single 30 minute period for the entire election day.
So all day long, there were like 7,000 failures every half hour.
That's a lot.
It's so many that it looks intentional.
One of the things that would happen if you've got a lot of failures, I don't know if it's just this issue, but generally speaking, if you have a lot of failures on election day, It makes your lines very long.
Right?
It makes the lines long.
And if you make the lines long in, let's say, red districts where there are a lot of Republicans, that would suppress the vote, because people will say, ah, I don't have enough time, I gotta get back to work.
And the claim is that most of these places that had accidental, you know, problems with their machines, that they were red areas, and so it suppressed the Republican vote, allegedly, potentially.
Then you got your inconsistencies with the redacted cast votes.
A whole bunch of senators had big problems with those.
You've got mismatched signatures.
The projected number of mismatched signatures in 2022 was 127,000 out of the 1.3 million early votes.
It's a lot.
So basically the machines used, tabulators and voting machines, were either insufficiently secure, is the claim, the allegation, and or intentionally crippled so that some groups would have suppressed voting.
And you also wouldn't know if there was any fakery going on because there were so many errors.
Basically this is enough errors to hide any kind of election fraud.
Now let me ask you this.
Um, I don't know how many of these will, you know, get any kind of attention in the courts and how many of them have some innocent explanation that I'm just not aware of yet.
But do you think Seth MacFarlane has ever heard any of this?
Do you think Seth MacFarlane is generally thinks the elections are pretty good?
Oh, sure.
You know, every now and then there'll be some local election where somebody stuffed a ballot box.
But if you're talking about the presidential election, With all the people watching and years to make sure we have an auditable system, how could that possibly be corrupt?
If you didn't know anything, you would be like me a few years ago.
Me a few years ago was, well, I don't think the elections are rigged.
I mean, that's kind of a big claim.
You better have good evidence if you say it's rigged.
And now I would say that the weight of evidence is overwhelming.
That we don't have an auditable system.
Would you agree with that?
Separate from the question of whether there was any past malfeasance, it's clearly not auditable, and it clearly doesn't give us a result which is consistent with the will of the people, because sometimes the people have to go home because the line is too long.
So there's a whole bunch happening.
That makes me think we don't have anything like any kind of election system, or fake democracy, or fake republic.
I don't know who's in control or what's going on beyond the scenes, but we definitely don't have a republic, and we definitely don't have anything like a credible voting system.
Now, so let me say clearly, I'm not aware that any of the specific claims are true, because I don't have the capability to know for sure.
So I don't want to say something about Dominion that's, you know, unfair.
I can just say these are the allegations.
And then on top of that, I can drop my own common sense, which says if you have a system that is so clearly not designed to know what happened, there's only one reason for that.
There's not two reasons for that.
There's only one reason you would spend a lot of money to put in a system that makes it impossible to know who won the election.
There's only one reason for that.
Now, again, something that Seth MacFarlane would have no idea.
So imagine being in a conversation with somebody who thought the news is real, the elections are all auditable, and that's the world we live in.
Nothing like that's happening.
Or imagine thinking that Ukraine is about Keeping Russia and Putin from being aggressive.
I used to think that.
Now I embrace the Mike Benz frame that Ukraine was always just a big energy play.
And that it was basically our military intelligence people decided that there's a whole bunch of rich people they serve.
It would be way better off, maybe in the trillion dollar range better off, if we controlled Ukraine's massive energy and Putin did not.
And that that's what all Ukraine was about.
The entire coup, all of it was about getting our rich American friends and other countries, I suppose, getting them the major access to Ukraine's energy and cutting Putin out.
And then the whole story about Putin and NATO and all that was just a cover story for a money grab.
So you should see the Ukraine war as two bullies with gas stations having a fistfight and neither of them are credible or good people.
It's just two terrible people fighting it out with your money.
That's how I see it.
Anyway, so Trump is still trying to get the money to pay these bonds and these big fees, these unreasonable fees that he's been given by the corrupt prosecutors and AGs in different states.
And Caitlin Collins is reporting how The Republicans are getting nervous about whether he'll be able to find the money.
He'd have to do a fire sale of his assets.
So, watching the TDS gooners just try to edge to Trump's troubles is the most disturbing thing you could possibly look at.
They're literally, and I do mean this literally, I think they're actually masturbating to how happy they are that something terrible might happen to Trump.
Which is a complete abrogation of all responsibility to our fellow citizens, as well as illegal as hell.
I mean, just super, super illegal.
How in the world is Letitia James still a free person?
Well, only if nothing is true.
Obviously, we don't have a Department of Justice that's working.
Just think of this situation.
So Soros' money makes The people in the country are very divided on race, and they paint Republicans as white supremacists.
So that's what Soros' money does.
Secondly, he uses the money to hire the people who believe that story the most, which would be black women who become prosecutors and attorney generals.
So now he's got a group of people which he has brainwashed into thinking they live in a white supremacy and they better get revenge on those bastards who made slaves of them and they're still doing terrible things.
So now you've got this perfect situation where you've trained these hip people to go after Republicans.
And then they do.
Now you've got Attorney General Letitia James who said she ran for office saying she would target Trump without having a crime.
Without having a crime.
And she did.
And then she looked for something and found something that definitely wasn't a crime, and then turned it into one.
She said, oh yeah, if you inflate your assets, and even though that's standard practice, and even though the bank doesn't even look at your inflated asset, and even though they checked themselves, and even though there was no victims, and even though the bank said, oh yeah, we would work with them again, we made a lot of money, it was great.
Even with all that, he still gets charged.
And, because the system is so broken and corrupt, he has to pay the penalty before he's finished his appeals.
Of course, the worst possible legal situation you could be in.
That's not any kind of a justice system.
Now you say to yourself, well, Scott, Letitia James has violated at least two laws.
Number one, using the color of the office, I think it's called, you know, the Basically, if you're in an authority position, like a chief of police or something, you can't use your job to target people and then use the power of your job to take them out.
But she did exactly that, publicly and proudly.
Publicly and proudly, she broke the law by using her office to go after an individual for obvious political purposes and for racist purposes.
Now, you might say to yourself, well, clearly, you know, there must be some way to, there's some check and balance here, right?
Nope.
What about the Eighth Amendment that says you can't do excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment?
Is it an excessive fine to take somebody's entire multi-billion dollar business away from them for a non-victim crime that nobody even complained about?
Yes, of course.
It's amazingly excessive.
Like, impossible to even make an argument that's not anything but ridiculously excessive.
So here she is, using her office to target a person, and to deny that person their constitutional rights, right in front of us.
There's no—you wouldn't have to do any research.
Just the public stuff.
Is publicly a crime, and obviously so.
I mean, any reasonable person can see that this is just two horrible crimes right in front of you.
So, who exactly could do anything about it?
Well, who's their boss?
The governor?
Do you think the Democrat governor is going to do something to save Trump?
No, it's not really an option.
Do you think that one of the prosecutors on her own staff is going to say, you know what?
I'm gonna buck the system and I'm gonna prosecute my own boss.
Do you think that would work?
Do you think that person's career would go well if they decided to prosecute their own boss?
Of course not.
So the Attorney General, funded by Soros, brainwashed by Soros, turned into a disgusting racist criminal, can now be a racist criminal in public, right in front of us, and there is no recourse, Because everybody who could do something has also been brainwashed into thinking some version of, yeah, but Trump is president would be worse.
So she actually can go on a reign of terror and absolutely target people and take them out.
And there's no recourse.
The governor will just say, all right, doing your job, continue.
Do you think that Seth MacFarlane is aware that the case against Trump is completely lawfare?
I doubt it.
If he thinks the news is real, then he probably thinks the case is real too.
It's about as far from real as you can possibly get.
Alright, here's what I've noticed is that the system protects itself.
The system being all these bad things I'm talking about.
The politics being broken, to the elections being broken, to the Department of Justice being completely corrupt.
If you try to tell somebody, well let me put it this way, if you start as a normie, a normal person, and you're not aware of all these things, you think the news is mostly real, especially your side, and you think the elections are mostly fair, and you think the Department of Justice is usually quite good, And that Ukraine is about Putin, and it's not about energy?
If you believed all of those things, and then you started looking into it and finding out more, do you know what happens to you?
It becomes impossible for you to have a conversation with normal people.
Right?
So, if I told you what really is happening, You would say to me, and you had not begun the journey, like if you've also taken the journey, then we can talk, because you would be aware that the JFK assassination, there's no chance that the way it was reported was real.
There's really no chance that it was that one gunman that killed him.
If you think there's any chance that that was real, how do I have a conversation with you about anything?
So what happens is, the more you learn about the corruption of the system, The more impossible it is to have any kind of a fruitful conversation with somebody who hasn't taken the journey.
And the people who haven't taken the journey have a name.
They're called Democrats.
There's an entire political party that hasn't taken the journey.
The Republicans are at all different levels.
You know, there's some Republicans who still think the election probably was mostly fair.
There are probably some Republicans who think, yeah, the news is largely correct.
No.
No, it isn't largely correct.
It is fake by intention and design.
You couldn't be more wrong.
But if somebody's on the same level, you can have a useful conversation.
It's just there aren't many of them.
So I noticed this because I've passed into what I call the crazy zone.
Meaning that if I were to talk to a normal person who believes the news is real and we live in a democratic federal republic, none of that's true.
Or even slightly true.
If they believe that, they think I'm crazy.
Right?
Would you agree?
If I simply explain to somebody, like, let's say a Glenn Greenwald dump.
Let's say, imagine a Democrat, who is walking through the world thinking all these things are real and true, spends 10 minutes with Glenn Greenwald.
Who, I think most of you understand, he would be one of the most credible people in the news sphere.
Would you agree?
Do you all agree with that?
That Greenwald would be one of the most insightful and credible, doesn't seem to be lying about anything as far as I can tell.
If you put him in a room with a typical Democrat and then come back in an hour, do you think that Greenwald would be able to break through and, you know, with his good powers of communication, convince them that they've been living in a, in a complete, a fiction bubble their entire life.
Do you think he could do that?
I don't.
I don't think he could do it.
I think they would talk over him.
They would just talk over him.
Because it's so painful to find out you've been fooled your entire life, that most people will just fight like, you know, wounded animals to not have to deal with the fact that everything they've believed is wrong.
And that would also mean that all of their votes were actually making the world worse.
Imagine finding out that every time you voted in the past, it was all making things worse.
All the work you did only made things worse.
You can't put that in your brain.
Your brain is going to go, nope, nope, nope, I'm not that person.
I don't do things consistently wrong.
It must be something you're saying, Glenn Greenwald.
Imaginary Glenn Greenwald.
Must be wrong.
Now, imagine putting Mike Benz in that room.
If you're not following him, you have no idea what I'm talking about.
But Mike Benz, if you follow him on XBNZ, last name, you're going to see the entire description of, you know, the intelligent networks and how they essentially run the country, if not the world.
And you're going to see the real story.
And there is no way a normal Republican is going to hear what Mike Benz says.
And by the way, I think he only uses public sources.
I think he uses entirely things that you can go check yourself, and you'd say, oh yeah, I guess that is true.
None of it's even hidden.
All he does is put it together.
And when you put it together, it paints a picture that is really shocking, if you haven't seen it yet.
So what would happen if you put him in a room with a normal Democrat, like Seth MacFarlane?
Do you think Seth would leave that and say, whoa?
Almost everything I believed about the country is completely wrong.
I don't think so.
I think that what would happen is they'd say, I met a crazy guy.
I don't know who he's working for, but probably China.
That's what they would do.
So we have a situation where we can no longer even have a conversation.
Because we're not even talking about policies.
Imagine thinking that the political conversation is about policies.
I don't know when that stopped, but it's definitely not about policies.
You know, if you look at the border situation, do you think that the border is open because we haven't decided a good policy?
No!
No, the border is open because there's somebody who has power who wants it open.
I think it's obvious that we're working with the cartels in all the Central and South American countries where they exist.
I think we partner with the cartels because that's how we control those other countries, for military and energy reasons and business reasons, basically.
And the trade-off is that our people are allowing the fentanyl trade and the immigration and human trafficking.
And that they know they're doing it.
It's intentional.
It's by design and it's what we're paying the cartels.
Basically, we're paying off the cartels by letting them earn so that when we need them, so let's say nudge the government of someplace to, you know, be good to some American interest that we have the ability to nudge because we're productive partners with the cartels.
Imagine telling that story to a normal person.
I think most of you are not normal because you're listening to this.
So, what we have instead of people who know what's happening on is people who are Democrats who are literally so happy that something bad might happen to Trump that they can't get enough dopamine watching it happen.
They're actually finding joy in watching the system grind down the biggest enemy to the system.
And so, I will further this point by saying that the key to Democrats holding power is not letting Democrat voters have access to people like me.
I'll just let you sit with that statement for a while, because it's so egotistical, but then I'll soften it later.
This is one of my tricks where I get you all worked up before I soften it.
So to get you all worked up, I'll say, I'm so powerful that the Democrats need to keep their base away from listening to me.
Okay, now let's soften a little bit.
Not just me.
But also Glenn Greenwald, Mike Benz, Jack Posobiec, Mike Cernovich, Michael Schellenberger, Matt Taibbi, right?
So it's a fairly long list, but the Democrat strategy has to be to make sure that their base never hears from any of us.
Now, they've done a good job on me, and I don't know exactly how they did it.
So I don't think it's just because I got canceled.
But I do not have really contact with actual normal Democrats.
The only ones I see are obviously paid or by hobby, they want to be trolls.
So the only Democrats I get are the ones who come in, no matter what I say, no matter how valid, no matter how well expressed, they come into my comments and they say, well, why are we listening to somebody who threw away everything as a disgraced cartoonist?
Right?
So the main thing they want to do is make sure that nobody on their team hears anything I say.
Now, I've also heard that there's a over a million person list, a block list, and I don't know how you access that, but apparently you can block all the other people who are blocked by somebody else on some list.
Is that a thing?
That's a real thing, right?
I don't know how you do that, but I'm told it's a thing.
So it might be that the Democrats have figured out how to game the X platform by, you know, we're all over on the X platform thinking we got our free speech back.
It's like, yeah, you know, Elon's fighting for us and got our free speech back, but at least on X we have free speech.
No, you don't.
All the Democrats did is they figured out a way to make Democrats not see your free speech.
So you have the freedom to talk to your fucking self.
Yeah, you have the fucking freedom to talk to yourself.
And if you talk out loud, you have the freedom to say stuff that don't annoy anybody in power because they will find a way to put you in fucking jail.
That's the system.
Do you think Seth MacFarlane knows that?
No.
Because he's never going to sit in a room with me.
He's never going to sit in a room with Mike Benz.
Never going to sit in a room with Glenn Greenwald or Michael Schellenberger or Matt Taibbi.
Never.
So there's no way he'll ever know.
Do you think he'll see this?
Imagine, if you will, that... Well, we'll turn it around.
Let's say there's somebody, a notable person, who does an extended podcast in which I'm mentioned 25 times.
Do you think somebody would mention it to me?
Of course!
It would take about five seconds before somebody would send me the link and they'd say, hey, this person said a bunch of things about you.
It happens every day.
Literally every day, somebody sends me a link and says, hey, somebody talked about you.
Do you think he gets those links?
Bet not.
I'll bet he'll never see this.
Because nobody will, well, and even if somebody sent him a link, what would he likely say?
Why would I listen to a disgraced racist?
Why would he spend the time?
It would be crazy.
And if he did listen to it, without having the priming of all the background and context that most of you have, it would sound crazy.
I would sound crazy, right now, for just saying what I've already said on this podcast.
Right?
Would you agree that I would sound crazy to someone who didn't have any background on what's going on?
Yeah.
So probably the only reason I'm still alive is that I've been completely marginalized to talking to people who already agree with me.
That could be it.
So we're all waiting for the Black Swan event.
I saw a number of people have mentioned it now online.
So now that we see the gears of the machine and we know that one of the mechanisms of control is ginning up fake emergencies that will give the people in power more power.
Yeah, so we're all expecting a big one to happen between now and Election Day.
Well, here's the thing.
Do you think they manufacture Black Swan events?
Or do they just wait for one to happen because there's always one coming along, and then they just capitalize on it?
Because if you think, let's say, George Floyd was a Black Swan event, I say, no, it wasn't.
It was an op.
It was an ordinary event.
Tragic.
But unfortunately, ordinary that somebody died of an overdose.
But then it got turned into, by the fake media, into he was murdered.
Do you think that Seth MacFarlane knows that the whole George Floyd thing was fake?
And that he just died of an overdose and the news and the coroner were pressured and basically it was just a white guy got put in jail for, maybe he didn't do a perfect job, but he certainly didn't kill him.
So yeah, no, if a Democrat heard me say that, which apparently they never will, I'm totally walled off from them, if they heard me say that the George Floyd thing is obviously and clearly, and every Republican knows it, was the most gross violation of justice I think I've ever seen in my adult life, I don't know, it's hard to think of a worse
A worse situation than watching somebody not murder somebody and then they go to jail for it.
So that's what I watched.
I watched somebody not murder somebody and then go to jail for murder.
And I think a lot of you thought the same thing.
Now at the time I didn't say a lot about it because it was too dangerous.
But now I'm completely walled off from all trolls.
So they'll never see it anyway.
So I can just say it out loud.
Plus I'm cancelled so I can say anything I want.
Well, Rasmussen did a poll on Biden policies.
49% of likely U.S.
voters say that Biden's policies have hurt them.
So basically half of the country that votes think Biden's policies have hurt them.
Well, how many would say the same about Trump?
34% say Trump's policies hurt them.
Compared to 49%.
So big, big difference.
And people trust Trump more than Biden on economics.
In a normal world, would you say, well, it's pretty obvious what's going to happen here.
We've got one person who's just way better on immigration and economics, and that seemed to be our biggest issue.
So obviously the one who is way ahead on economics is going to win.
Because as we learned in the Bill Clinton campaign, it's about the economy, stupid.
Well, I don't think those rules apply anymore.
I think the new rules are that whoever is really in charge of our country can make anybody the president they want.
And if something goes wrong, they can blow his head off in a convertible in Texas.
That's what I think.
All right.
So here's some more Some more news.
So, Endwokeness again has reported that Google changed their search results for the definition of the word bloodbath.
Now, there was a time when I would have automatically said, that didn't happen.
They didn't just like right in front of you change the definition of a word to match the Democrat spin.
But he's got screenshots.
He's got a screenshot from before the whole bloodbath thing.
And one of the definitions was very clearly, a bloodbath could also refer, besides the, you know, human violence part, can also refer to an economic loss.
That could be a bloodbath.
It said explicitly, one of the definitions is an economic bad outcome.
And as of today, They got rid of that part of the definition, and now it just says it's physical violence.
Did that really happen right in front of us?
Like, I'm having trouble believing that it's not just something, an oddity of how you search, and maybe it's, you know, one person got the... I'm having trouble believing this one.
On the other hand, it is now well within the realm Of things we've already seen happen.
Would you agree?
If you had asked me in the year 2000, did Google just go on and change the definition of a word so that the Democrats' narrative, which is completely made up, would be more supported, I would have said in 2020, or 2000, let's say, I would have said, well, I don't think they'd do that right in front of the world, because we could see it, and people would call them out, and then they would, you know, be embarrassed, It'd be bad for them.
But we don't live in that world anymore.
We live in the world where they can do it right in front of you.
And there's nothing you can do.
Because again, the only people are going to hear about it are the people in my bubble.
With me.
Like you.
You're in my bubble if you're watching this.
Or we can say it's your bubble and I'm in your bubble.
If you like it that way.
But no, I think this actually is happening.
You know, I wouldn't bet my life on it.
I think it's a 60-40 situation.
There might be something else we find out about it.
But at the moment, it looks like the system is so corrupt that they changed the definition of a word right in front of you.
Now, I was saying before we went live, I was talking to the locals people privately, and I was saying that for my entire life, people have been saying, Oh, it's like 1984 now, in the 70s.
And I'd say, oh, is it?
Is it really?
And then, you know, 10 years go past and, well, now it's 1984.
We're definitely 1984 now.
And I would say, but are we?
You know, you said that 10 years ago.
But now I have to agree.
If you're actually watching words change their definition in real time, To match the bad things that Democrats want to do to the other side?
If that's really happening, and it does look like it is, I could be wrong.
So I'm not going to say 100% on this one.
But if it is, yeah, we're in 1984.
I think this is when you could call it.
You could say it's been creeping up on us for a long time, but yeah.
Yeah.
If they're changing the definition of words in real time, That would answer all of your questions about what kind of a system we're in.
Now, do you think that Seth MacFarlane will ever hear that the bloodbath thing was taken out of context?
I doubt it.
And will he ever hear that Google changed the definition of it allegedly?
Probably not.
No.
Who would tell him?
Because if you're not watching this podcast or following the same people I follow on X, and I know they're not, How would you know?
Is it going to be on CNN?
Do you think CNN will report that Google changed the definition of the word?
If it happened.
I'm seeing something that might be an answer to that.
Let me read the famous George Orwell 1984 quote.
Somebody put it in the comments.
So this is from 1984.
Quote, every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every day has been altered and the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute.
History has stopped.
Nothing exists except an endless present in which the party is always right.
Does that describe our current situation?
Tuity.
Yeah.
Yeah, you're right.
We're actually watching history rewritten in real time.
History is being erased.
You know, I've talked about this before, but the history of me The public record of me and who I am and what I've done, it's all changed.
And it's all fake.
My books have been erased.
Any good work I've ever done, completely gone.
And now I'm watching my greatest contributions to, really, the most important things I've ever done, are now routinely being credited to other people.
Which is weird, watching it happen in real time.
Routinely.
Just other people are being credited with things I literally invented that changed a lot.
All right.
Let's see what else we got going on here.
How many of you saw the Bobulinski thing?
I'm still shaking my head because it was so amazing.
So here's how to understand that.
So Bobulinski was Hunter Biden's business partner, and he testified in the impeachment trial, I guess it was, to the House Oversight Committee.
And the Democrats had to shut him down as best they could, and they succeeded.
So the bad news is that Bobulinski said things that made it very clear that the Biden family was a criminal influence organization.
They were taking money from somebody they knew to be President Xi's protege.
Like, they knew that.
and they still were going to do like millions of dollars of business, which would have made them beholden to Xi indirectly. And then the whole thing in Ukraine, we now understand it was just an energy grab by our intel and military people and NATO. And people were going to make a zillion dollars on it, and the Bidens were part of that.
And so certainly it looks like a FARA violations.
It looks like RICO, meaning that they were, a lot of people were coordinating for criminal intent, which is why AOC calls no evidence of a crime.
So she kept saying to Bobulinski and overtalking him, did you personally see Joe Biden commit a crime?
Now you have to see her liar eyes.
She does liar eyes, you know, more obviously than most people.
So look for the wrinkled forehead and the eyebrows that are practically up to your hairline when you say things you know are not true.
So, so when she's like, so you're saying there's no crime.
And then Bob Linsky would say, yes, there's a crime.
There's Farrah, there's Rico.
So you didn't see any crimes.
Yeah, yes I did.
So the Farah, so the Rico.
So!
You're saying you didn't see any crimes?
And her eyes just get wider and wider as the things she's saying are stupider and stupider?
Because the wide eyes are how you signal you want somebody to believe your bullshit.
When you know what you're saying is true, you don't do that wide eye thing.
Here's how you say things you think are reasonable and normal and true.
So, Mr. Bobulinski, you've made a lot of claims, but did you directly witness any crimes?
That would be somebody who thinks they have a good point, and that the information alone would tell the story they want to be told.
If they know the information is not telling the story they want to be told, they talk over you, and they open your eyes so they're like these giant saucers, and they pretend that you didn't say what you just said.
Mr. Bobulinski!
What color is the sky during the daytime when there are no clouds?
That would be blue.
Why do you say the sky is purple?
Well, no, I said the sky is blue.
Why do you continue to say it's purple?
Well, no, I didn't say that.
I was just saying blue.
Why?
Give me one reason why you keep lying.
And then the people who don't know the situation, which is almost everybody, Because it's too complicated.
Are you going to look at that and say, well, the only thing I remember is that AOC said there was no evidence of any crime, so I guess the Bidens are fine.
Do you think that Seth MacFarlane took any time to watch the Bobulinski stuff?
No!
No, why would he?
It's too complicated, it's too wonky, you feel like you've already seen it before, etc.
Seeing some more definitions.
So did other sources also change the definition?
All right, so some have it right, some have it wrong.
The blood bath definition.
All right, so I would say Judge Jeanine, I thought, had the best filter on this.
It is true, and AOC was very clever to do it.
She's a clever persuader.
She knew that if she just yelled, but you didn't personally see a crime, And she said it enough that her idiot followers would think that's what happened.
However, as Judge Dean says, this would be sort of a circumstantial case, meaning that if you put everything we know in one argument, well, it's obvious a criminal organization.
It's obvious, obvious, super, super obvious that it's, you know, an illegitimate skeezy operation.
And that they were way too close to people who could have influenced them, like China's President Xi and all that badness in Ukraine.
And as long as the Democrats don't understand all of the details of the allegations, and they don't, because they're not going to watch Bobulinski, then they can say, well, I haven't heard anything that sounds bad to me.
So AOC is part of the Turd Caucus.
The Turd Caucus are the people who will say absolutely anything in public because they know you won't check.
So that'd be Schiff, Swalwell, Brennan, Clapper, J.B.
Raskin.
So there's this group of maybe a dozen people That as soon as you see them, you know that they don't have an argument, so they're sending out the turd caucus to lie to you, to your face.
And they're just hoping that you don't check on anything.
All right, we're gonna tell a bunch of lies.
I hope you don't check anything.
So the thing that they should be looking at is to see whether there's a pattern and a fact a set of facts which would clearly show that the Biden crime family was doing stuff and kicking back money to Joe and And that they were pretty close to power in other countries in a way that is uncomfortable Anyway, uh, Kyle Becker finally snapped I should say that
Uh, because kyle's a great follow speaking of independent journalist types. So file follow kyle becker. He's great Anyway, he posted today, I don't feel like the United States has a government anymore.
It's just a criminal organization looting taxpayers for trillions, green lighting an illegal alien invasion, and acting as accomplices to foreign subversion by the communist Chinese.
That's pretty close.
What do you think?
Yeah, Goldman's another part of the third caucus.
I think that's a pretty good summation.
I do think that the government is more of a criminal organization.
I think that's just so obvious now that you can say that.
And meanwhile, the U.S.
is calling on the U.S.
Security Council, the U.N.
Security Council, for a ceasefire in Gaza.
You think that's going to happen?
You think there's going to be a ceasefire in Gaza because the U.N.
Security Council called for one?
Nope.
I don't think so.
I think Israel is going to do what Israel is going to do.
Now, in my opinion, as I've said before, one of the greatest assets that Israel has had since its founding is the narrative of the Holocaust.
Because once you have the Holocaust narrative working in your favor, people don't want to do it to you again, and it puts up guardrails for behavior that makes sense.
However, if you spend that goodwill, let's call it goodwill in a weird way, the idea that the Holocaust narrative should influence all of us, you know, not just people who had some direct connection to it.
And I think that has always been a good benefit to Israel because nobody wants to see the Holocaust happen again.
So if it looks like Israel's threatened, there are a lot of people who are automatically primed to say, no, never again, we can't let the Holocaust happen.
So that's always been one of Israel's greatest assets, and I think that they've used it wisely.
But now, it looks like Netanyahu is going to spend that savings account.
Meaning that when this is all said and done, and again, if you think you're seeing my opinion in this, I'm trying to leave my opinion out.
I'm just going to describe it.
And I'm trying to do it just, you know, Without any bias.
The Holocaust narrative, I think, will be completely destroyed by whatever happens in Gaza.
And I think they've already crossed that point, where I don't think the Holocaust narrative will ever be operative the way it used to be.
Because I think forevermore, every time it comes up, somebody's going to say, well, what about Gaza?
Now, I'm not telling you that's a good or bad comparison.
There's no opinion in what I'm saying.
I'm just describing what is the likely outcome.
But here's the surprise switch.
It sounded like I was kind of criticizing Netanyahu, didn't it?
Because I said he was just spending their greatest asset.
But you know what?
Here's the thing that's hard to predict.
This looks like a good investment to me.
And again, that's not an opinion or a value judgment.
Just cold, clear cash.
If you had the Holocaust narrative in your pocket, and it was your asset, and you saw that you could once and for all, maybe, remove your biggest risk in the area through somewhat dramatic actions, that might be a good expense.
Trading the Holocaust narrative and its protective qualities might be a good trade-off if what you get is no neighbors that want to kill you every minute of the day.
That might actually be worth the expense.
And I think Netanyahu is smart enough to know that it looks like a good investment, but he's going to have to eat worldwide shit forever.
Netanyahu We'll never recover from the Gaza situation.
I think he basically just tied himself... I'm not going to give you... I was going to make a Christian analogy, but let me back off on that one.
I think that Netanyahu is literally sacrificing his reputation, and if not his life, at the same time he's spending the Holocaust narrative, the biggest asset, and it is one hell of a big swing.
Because if in the long run this works out, meaning that Israel has all this extra land that they've dominated, their neighbors have no longer tried to kill them, they have a much bigger territory and therefore a bigger economy, and they're safer, he's going to look like a genius.
But at the moment, it's hard for any civilized person to back him.
Because if you see what's happening in Gaza, You don't really want to say, well, I back that guy that's doing that.
Cause you didn't back the Holocaust.
You don't back anything that involves lots of people getting killed.
I mean, it's just hard to be a good person and back any kind of military action against people who many of them are civilians.
So you can, you can hate the evil and badness of it while still saying, okay, but is it a good play?
Will history judge Netanyahu?
To be one of the greatest leaders, or one of the worst.
I guarantee he will be judged one of the worst for years to come.
Because it'll be like, Gaza will be the stain that can't be removed.
But when he's dead, and maybe it's 30 years from now, people are gonna look back with, you know, a different filter, and they're gonna say, maybe.
You know, this would be the optimistic case, maybe.
They might say, You know, I didn't like any of that stuff.
I definitely didn't like how Gaza went.
No good person could be in favor of massive death.
But it looks like it worked out.
That's a possibility.
And it's a strong one.
So, the thing you shouldn't do is believe that Netanyahu doesn't know how anything works.
Netanyahu knows how everything works.
And so he's making a play that on paper looks like it could be one of the greatest plays that Israel has ever done to their future security and, you know, the future of their country.
But it's very risky.
It's very risky and they could lose their greatest asset and still end up with dangerous neighbors.
So it's by no means safe.
But boy, is it gutsy.
And honestly, I'd probably play it the same way.
You know, I always try to put myself in this situation, which is hard to do, you know, cause there's, you can't really put yourself in other people's situation.
Um, but you can get closer if you at least spend some time thinking about what that would be like.
And I think he's taking a hell of a patriotic, um, risk personally.
So, oh, could be wrong.
I'm not there.
I don't know the people personally, so I could be wrong about everything.
All right.
Yes, we all agree that Israel is in a self-defensive frame.
Did he forget?
Cortez.
What's that?
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes the best show ever.
All right.
Biden cancels $6 billion in student loan debt.
Interesting.
I'll check up on that story.
What's the difference between an opinion and a prediction?
What is the difference between an opinion and a prediction?
Well, the opinion usually has value judgments.
A prediction doesn't necessarily have value, right?
So an opinion might be, I don't think Israel should do what they're doing.
But a prediction would be, they're going to keep doing what they're doing.
Does that work as a difference between an opinion and a prediction?
So you could argue that I have an opinion about my prediction, but that gets a little wordy.
All right, thanks for joining everybody.
Export Selection