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, 3rd Party Candidate Block, Batshit Crazy Women, AGI AI, Elon Musk, Human Intelligence Illusion, Nvidia AI Nurses, P Diddy, President Trump Bond, Judge Engoron, Malinformation, Kate Starbird, GeoBee Equity, Francis Scott Key Bridge, DEI, Abortion Pill Controversy, Republican Self-Sabotage, Media Matters Sued, Unelected Censorship brainwashing, MSNBC Ronna McDaniel, Rachael Maddow, Climate Change Benefits, Moscow Terrorist False Flag, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
Yes, I did have technical issues.
I just had to sign out and sign back in.
Took me a minute to figure that out.
But we're all good now.
Look at us.
We're flying now.
All right.
Things are looking good.
If you'd like to take this experience from the amazingness that it is up to another level that you can't even imagine, all you need for that is A cuppermugger, a cuppermugger, a glass, a tankard, chalice, a side, a canteen, jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it's going to be great.
Go.
Ah, delicious.
Bye.
All right, should we start with just the morning complaining?
I'm looking at the comments.
Get it out of your system.
Go ahead.
Complain.
I'll just not watch your comments for a minute while you do that.
But to begin, I'd like to do a warm-up and a test.
Really a demonstration of excellence for people who are new.
Demonstration of amazingness.
You ready?
Now, this is a little bit of group participation.
Now, if you're new to this, I'm going to give you all a test.
And what you don't know is that the local subscribers privately behind the subscription wall, I trained them on persuasion and reading by the body language and, you know, how to program your mind for success, but also how to predict the future.
And they're doing it now.
They're doing it right now.
Look at that.
I haven't even told you the topic, and they're already telling you the answer.
They're really doing that, by the way.
This is really happening.
If you're new to this, you see the answers going by?
25, 27, 26.
The answer is 24.
Look how close they are.
That's pretty good for predicting the future.
Does anybody care what the question is?
They all got the right answer.
And by the way, in reality, they have not heard the question.
They don't even know the domain of the question, and they have the right answer.
Here's the question.
According to a Rasmussen poll, what percentage of likely voters believe Joe Biden is a stronger commander-in-chief than most recent presidents?
24%?
Now is that impressive?
Everybody on Locals knew the answer before the question was asked.
And they legitimately didn't know the question.
And they did that right in front of you.
Live demonstration.
Yeah.
If you were a member of Locals, you'd know how this was done.
Anyway, I saw a post by Zuby.
Well, Zuby, I've got some background information on this.
by how resistant people are to psyops, there are quote smart people who fall for every single one, so I struggle to consider them intelligent. Well, Zuby, I've got some background information on this. When I was learning hypnosis, one of the weird things that I learned right away is that smart people are easier to hypnotize than dumb people.
It's counterintuitive.
But the smarter you are, the more likely you'll believe in ridiculous things.
I don't know exactly why, but we had a hypothesis about it.
And by the way, I don't think it's scientifically tested, but anecdotally, and in my own experience, the smarter my subject was, The easier they were to hypnotize.
It was my experience, and that's what we were trained in.
Could have been confirmation bias, but it looked real.
And here's the hypothesis of why smart people are easy to hypnotize.
It's because they don't believe they can be hypnotized.
The smart people think it isn't possible, so their defenses are down.
You can just slither right in.
A dumb person As soon as they meet me, they say, uh-oh.
They say, I'm dumb.
This guy seems to know some weird skill called hypnosis.
I better put up all of my defenses because I don't know what he's going to do.
He's going to reprogram me into a murderer or something.
So dumb people put up all their defenses.
They're actually hard to hypnotize because they're just full defense.
A smart person says, oh, I'm not actually going to be hypnotized.
You know, I'll just go along with the experiment.
And, you know, I'm kind of curious what will happen.
And yeah, go ahead.
Do your magic.
Do your little hypnosis.
See what happens.
So the smart people take their put their defenses down.
They're totally programmable.
So there's no mystery to it at all, if you're hypnotist.
At least that's my hypothesis.
Well, I'm going to take that as my theme today, that being smart does not help you in understanding the world.
And boy, do we see a lot of examples of that.
So thanks, Subhi, for my theme of the day.
Let's see, first thing in the theme, Jonathan Turley.
Notes that there's a reported plan for the Democratic National Committee and their allied groups to try to block third-party candidates from the 2024 ballot.
Now, at the same time they're trying to block candidates from the ballot, their rallying cry is save democracy.
That's happening at the same time.
Is it dumb people doing that?
Is it dumb people Who are organizing to keep third parties off the ballot, at the same time they're saying, we've got to save democracy from the Republicans.
Same people.
Do you think that the people doing all of the censorship between 2017 and 2022, do you think that those were all the dumb people?
Nope.
Smart people.
It was smart people.
Did they think that they were destroying the world and ruining free speech?
No!
No, they didn't think that.
They were confident in their own intelligence, and that was the problem.
They were too confident that they knew what they were doing, and they hadn't thought it through.
More on that later.
Let's see.
I'd like to give you an update on what I call the batshit crazy woman problem.
So this is your batshit crazy woman update.
Let's see.
Are there any stories in the news today about batshit crazy women doing stuff?
I'm checking.
Okay, here's one.
The Church of England Archdeacon, who is a youngish woman, is openly calling for anti-whiteness.
So, I think Fox News was reporting that.
I saw the headline and I said to myself, don't really need to read the story.
I saw the picture.
So they put a picture of the batshit crazy woman there so you know what's really going on.
So, batshit crazy woman, story number one.
Elon Musk says that AGI, that's the form of AI that'll be actually so smart it'll be like a person.
As opposed to the current versions, which are more pattern recognition and impressive in their own way, but they're not what people call artificial general intelligence, or AGI.
So it's not generally intelligent, it's just a pattern follower.
Now, what happens when we discover that the thing that we think is human intelligence is nothing but pattern recognition?
What happens then?
So, I'm going to bet against Elon Musk.
I don't know if I've ever done this before.
But I believe there's something I see that he can't see.
I believe I have unique visibility on this issue.
Now, of course, he has a far superior understanding of AI.
Can we all agree on that?
So I'm not going to give him an opinion that violates his domain of expertise, because what he knows about AI is a million times what I know.
But there is one thing I know, which is that human intelligence is an illusion.
If you don't know that, everything's going to get confusing really fast.
Human intelligence is an illusion.
We are not different from the pattern recognition AI that we have now.
To imagine that we will create something that's smarter than us, and that we would let it run, or that we'd even recognize it as smart, is a leap I can't make.
Everything I know about human beings suggests that AGI is logically impossible.
It's not technically impossible.
Because it'll never matter if it's technically possible.
It's logically impossible.
Because we think we're smart, and if we're building something that matches what we think we are, we will know it's not smart, but we won't know what the problem is.
We'll keep making it like us, because we think we have this generalized intelligence.
So we'll keep trying to make it like us, and it'll keep being stupid.
And we won't be able to figure out why it falls for ops.
Why does this super intelligence keep falling for hoaxes?
Well, same reason people do.
It wouldn't be any different.
What happens when an AGI that we've decided is so smart it's going to run the world falls for a hoax?
And you say to yourself, well, that's the whole point of it being super intelligent, is it won't fall for the hoax.
I'd question that.
I think a super intelligent AI would fall for a hoax easily.
Easily.
Because everything that makes us what we are, flawed humans with our flawed intelligence, will just be baked into the model.
It's going to have the same susceptibility to being hoaxed.
Except we'll believe it, because we'll think, ah, smarter than us.
So it must have figured this out.
Anyway, keep an eye on that.
So I'm going to go against Musk's prediction.
He says the AGI will be by next year.
Which is faster than a lot of people say.
Now his prediction, and he makes a very rational case for it, is that we can't predict things that are changing fast.
We can't understand the rate of change.
Humans can't understand the rate of change.
It's just basic.
We can't do that.
And that while we see slight progress toward this AGI, What we don't see is that when it starts to give faster progress, it's going to be so faster that it's almost instant.
So we don't see that the curve is going to be nothing, nothing, nothing, everything.
It's going to happen fast.
He's right about that.
If anything, if anything does happen, it'll happen like that.
He says, by 2030, AI will exceed all human intelligence combined.
And I disagree with that.
Because if he's right, that AGI is achieved by next year, and the reason that he would be, let's say, predicting that ahead of other people, is because he's predicting that that rate of change will surprise us.
Wouldn't that also apply to the 2030 prediction?
I think that if AGI actually happened, that it would exceed all human intelligence combined, maybe in a month.
Why would it take years?
If it had access to everything we have access to, I don't know.
I think it would exceed all human intelligence, if it ever existed, right away.
Like it would happen so fast, we wouldn't even know it happened.
So, that's two disagreements, but one is conditional.
One is that if he's right about AGI, Then he's wrong about how long it will take to exceed all human intelligence, because it would just be, in my opinion, it looks like he's making the same mistake with the 2030 as he's telling us not to make with the AGI in the coming year, the rate of change issue.
So anyway, if you're going to bet on Musk or me, you should bet on him.
He has a better track record of being right than I do.
If I'm gonna bet, I'd bet on him.
But I think it's fun to have the counter-prediction up there, just to test it.
Well, NVIDIA, according to Unusual Whale's account, has announced an AI-powered healthcare agent that can outperform nurses and will cost you $9 an hour.
That's according to Fox News, I guess.
Now, if you can hire a nurse over the phone, or over some digital mechanism, for $9 an hour, and is better than a real nurse, would you do that?
Of course you would.
Now I have a few points to make about that.
Point number one, when anybody asks me for career advice, I don't know what to say anymore.
I used to give career advice all my life.
You know, as soon as things worked out for me, people would always ask me, well, how did you do that?
How'd you become successful without starting with anything?
And I would give them my answers, wrote a book about it.
But today, if somebody said, hey, Scott, I'm thinking of becoming a nurse.
What would I say?
Would I say, well, you can try, but they won't need nurses so much as they might need somebody to change bedpans.
Because the actual thinking part of being a nurse is already gone.
It's already gone.
And Vinny had just replaced it.
So what would a nurse do?
I don't know.
Clean up?
Would a nurse be like a janitor or just somebody to talk to that's not a robot?
What would the nurse do?
So I don't even know how to give any kind of career advice.
But more importantly, I think that our range of prediction has shortened to about six months.
Meaning that you could probably predict things in the economy and the nation reasonably well in six months.
Based on the fact that it won't change much.
But anything between six months and a year?
I don't know that we could predict anything anymore.
We certainly don't know what's going to happen with the election.
That's an anything-could-happen situation.
And we don't know even if healthcare will still exist as an industry.
Think about that.
The healthcare industry could be gone in a year, as we know it.
As we know it.
I mean, it would still exist, and would be better.
You know, because that's the whole point, it would be better.
But it could be gone.
It could be that the only people who do anything physical are applying splints.
And that's only until the robots can do it.
Which, you know, maybe a year or two.
So, I don't know.
Should you become a doctor?
I have no idea.
I have no idea if you should become a doctor.
Isn't that weird?
That's never been true in the history of humankind.
That you're like, I don't know, is it a bad idea to become a doctor?
Even surgery has the same problem.
Yeah, the robots are going to be able to do surgery way better.
Soon.
All right.
Well, here are two parts about me.
I like to make the news all about me.
But do you know that there's a connection to me in this story?
What's the connection to me and the story about NVIDIA having an AI-powered healthcare agent?
Do you know how I'm involved with that?
This is only going to work if it's legal to do telehealth across state lines.
You're welcome.
Yeah, during the pandemic, most of you know the story.
I was the one who suggested to Trump that he dropped that limitation where you couldn't talk to a doctor in another state unless they were licensed in your state.
So telehealth is something that didn't exist across state lines until the pandemic, and until I literally is the one who suggested it.
Now, because it's a good idea once you hear it in a pandemic, it's an obvious idea, it was implemented.
And just like Obama, Um, said with Obamacare, Obama said, I'm going to do a bad version of Obamacare, but it'll be too hard for them to take it away.
So they're going to have to fix it.
And it's still here.
It worked.
I mean, it worked in the sense of exactly that was his plan to get something passed that he could get passed, but we wouldn't want to take it away because no politician can take away your healthcare.
It's too dangerous.
So, sure enough, when I suggested that we do it for the pandemic, what I was really thinking is the Obama strategy.
That once you could do telehealth across state lines, it would be really hard for the government to take that away from you.
They tried.
There was actually a lot of motion to actually take it away.
Why?
I don't know.
Probably because the AMA, the doctors, wanted to take it away because they didn't want so much competition.
It's bad for your income, I guess.
That's my best guess.
But yes, so your ability to get a nurse for $9 an hour may have something to do with me.
Isn't that fun?
No, I mean, I'd be a small part of it, of course.
They also had to invent these Nvidia chips and stuff, and that was cool, too.
So don't want to minimize that.
But maybe I was a small part of that.
All right.
I saw a post by Josh Jolani talking about how young people can't do anything anymore.
So if you graphed young people's habits today compared to the past, young people no longer want to drive a car.
Get a job to work for pay, drink alcohol, have sex, or ever go on a date.
Now, it's not zero, obviously, but it's gone from something like 80% of all kids did all these things to, like, half of all the kids do all these things.
Now, you might say to yourself, I'm not even sure that's bad that they haven't tried alcohol and sex.
I'm not saying it's bad.
I'm saying that they're really different.
There's a difference.
It seems to us, older people, that because young people have been coddled and sheltered from the real world and they spend time looking at screens, that they don't know how to do anything.
That they don't know how manners work.
They don't know how to ask somebody to a date and get turned down.
You know, just basic stuff.
How do you go drive a car?
But by the time, let me test this against the older viewers.
By the time I was old enough to get my permit to drive a car, I had already operated all manner of motor vehicle.
And I'd even driven automobiles, you know, in a non-street place, just practicing and playing around.
I'd worked on a farm.
I'd read driving, you know, I'd been on the riding mowers.
So by the time I was old enough to get a license, I was actually qualified to handle heavy equipment.
Golf carts, right.
Yeah.
I was actually trained on all manner of conveyances, mechanical things.
I knew how to fix things, change tires, add gas.
I had learned all of those skills because I worked in the real world.
So, every job was a new physical thing to solve, and then you work through it, and you learn how to solve it.
It's like, how do I rake this yard?
How do I get this snow done before I get to school?
How do I mow this lawn?
There's a hill there.
It was just continuous problem solving, and a lot of it involved dangerous heavy equipment.
It was just normal.
Now, if you had never touched any dangerous heavy equipment, or never done a job, or never touched anything important that you could break, It would be really scary to drive a car, wouldn't it?
It would seem daunting.
Imagine going from only playing video games to driving a 2,000-pound machine in traffic.
That's like a really big leap.
But for me, it wasn't.
And for you, it wasn't either, for most of the older people.
It wasn't a big leap for me.
I was totally ready.
I got it on the first day.
Permit, day one.
But a lot of this is also a drop in testosterone.
So some of it is alternatives are fun, you know, the screens.
But a lot of it is dropping testosterone and then there is some coddling, of course.
Well, I guess we need to talk about P. Diddy.
P. Diddy's rapper, P. Diddy, Puff Daddy.
Sean Combs, his homes were raided.
I don't think he's been arrested or found.
I'm not sure exactly what's going on.
There's some thought that his children were arrested.
They're adult children.
And we don't know exactly if he's in the country, so there's a lot of mystery about it.
Maybe you guys have some updates I haven't seen since I woke up.
But the important thing is, what kind of jokes can we make about this situation?
All right, I'll go first.
Did the simulation name him Diddy because they would know he would be accused of a terrible crime and we would all ask ourselves, terrible crime?
Diddy?
Diddy?
Now is that a coincidence that his name is Diddy?
Now, is Diddy your daddy?
I don't know exactly what the allegations are, but they seem to be somewhere in the sex crime area.
Have we narrowed it down?
Have we narrowed it down to something in the sexual crime domain, but we don't have any details and we're not even positive about that yet, right?
Is that fair?
Anyway, he's in a lot of trouble.
This, of course, raises every possible conspiracy theory that everybody on the right has, that the entire entertainment industry is a giant grooming situation.
So, some would say that Sean Combs did more than comb.
Not only did he comb, he groomed, they say.
No, he's a comber and a groomer.
Sean Combs.
Anyway, he's innocent until proven guilty.
Let me be a little bit serious for a moment.
It sounds like the accusations must be pretty dire because of the size of the military response.
But, he is a citizen of the United States.
And as a citizen of the United States, who may have some legal jeopardy here, Let me say as clearly as I can.
It's true for Hunter Biden.
It's true for Trump.
It's true for P. Diddy.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Can we do that?
You know, it's fun to sort of dance on the grave of people you don't like if they're famous and wealthy.
But I think we just got to try as hard as we can to say innocent until proven guilty.
We're having fun with it, because it's not us.
But if you're watching Lawfare take out Trump, and then you see somebody who's on the other, you think is on the other team, you know, somebody who might be more of a Biden supporter, and you see him being taken out in a massive police action, does that mean it's real?
No, unfortunately, I don't live in a country where I assume that a massive police action is based on real information.
It could be.
I don't rule it out.
I'm certainly not defending anybody.
I don't know enough about it.
But who knows?
Who knows?
It could be literally anything, and it could be a psyop, and it could be fake.
It could be about somebody in his circle and not about him.
It's entirely possible that it's not about him at all.
So I'm going to give him the The most generous benefit of a doubt, because we're deep in this stage of war thing, it's entirely possible that he's done nothing.
But we'll wait.
We'll wait and see.
So let's give him the benefit of a doubt.
It's really hard to do, I know, because every flag is waving in the same direction.
I get it.
I get it.
Everything is suggesting that this is real.
But we've been fooled before.
Have I told you that smart people are the easiest to hypnotize?
This is one of those situations.
If you haven't caught yourself getting caught up in, you know, the confirmation bias of you just assume it's true, you should catch yourself.
Just ask yourself, if this were Trump, would it be real?
If this were Roger Stone being raided at 6am, does that make it real?
No!
No.
The fact that there's a massive police action against a public figure does not mean it's real.
Not at all.
It might be, but it doesn't mean it.
So I'm going to give him the biggest benefit of a doubt anybody ever gave anybody, because it's America, damn it.
It's still America.
A little bit.
Still America.
All right, so let's check, you know, everything is political this time of year, going into the election season.
So let's see if we can make this story political.
Okay, in the last 24 hours, one side, let's say Trump, represents that side.
He reduced his bond requirement so he could pay it in cash, in one of the most impressive things a billionaire ever said.
Yeah, it's only $175 million now, so I'll just cover that bond with cash.
The fact that he could casually tell you he has $175 million that he could put as collateral for his bond is kind of impressive.
It's kind of baller.
At the same time, his company went public, and he owns 58% of it, and now he's worth over $6.5 billion.
Some people said it went up today, which might add another billion.
So he's the richest he's ever been, and it looks like the odds of him being taken out of the election by lawfare have gone way down.
So that's how one side is doing.
The political right had a really good day yesterday, if you count what happened to Trump as a good day.
Let's see, a Biden supporter.
Okay, the Biden supporter was accused of horrible sex crimes and is on the run.
Okay, so it wasn't a great day for the Biden supporters.
Not their best day.
So, worth mentioning.
Anyway, we are at the beginning of what I call Trump's third act.
If this were a movie, the third act is where your hero escapes from impossibly long odds.
It's so impossible that this person could ever climb out of this hole, and then they do it.
Well, I feel like that really happened yesterday because the news was reporting that it would be impossible, impossible for Trump to ever figure out a way to get out of this hole, that his properties were going to be seized, his New York businesses would be closed down.
He would be a disgraced, failed business person going into an election.
And my God, it couldn't be worse for him.
But instead, he and his lawyers seem to have, I'm going to use the word negotiated, Negotiated down the fee from an impossible business ending level to, I'll just use my cash as the collateral, we'll take care of this.
Can I write a personal check?
Now the fact that he survived by negotiating only adds to his legend.
Now some will say, but, but, but, His legend of being a great negotiator, it's all puffed up.
It's not real.
Well, I don't know.
Everybody has their opinion about things, but it certainly looks like he negotiated his way out of certain doom.
Doesn't it?
Now, now you could say this is just normal process and the courts were, the appeals court was certainly going to do this because it makes sense.
And maybe it didn't take that much convincing because it's so obviously, uh, you know, so obvious that the bond was too high.
But the way it's going to look to us, the way it's going to feel to the public is that he, it was the art of the deal.
It's going to look like the art of the deal.
It's going to look like he negotiated his way out, which couldn't be better because he's running for office to say that he can negotiate us out of impossible situations.
Let me say that again, because it's so good.
He's running for office under the specific challenge of helping us negotiate our way out of impossible holes.
Right?
Getting out of Ukraine, it's kind of impossible.
Getting out of our debt, impossible.
Securing the border, it's looking impossible even though it isn't.
So he's literally running for a job where solving impossible problems is the core job description.
And that he solved an impossible problem right in front of you.
Could that be better?
No, it could not.
That is the best look you could possibly have when your brand is negotiating the solution to impossible problems.
All right.
Here's a dog not barking.
One of my favorite categories.
This one noticed by Mark Hemingway, who Posted this.
Now, when you hear this, you're going to be mad that you never thought of it.
That's what makes a good dog not barking story.
As soon as you hear it, you're going to say, what?
Wait, why have I never heard about that before?
It's the dog not barking.
All right, here it is, courtesy of Mark Hemingway.
He says, uh, just curious, have any of you seen any piece at all in the last couple of months, meaning a piece in the press, uh, defending the fraud judgment against Trump?
You know, the, in Oregon, that judge in Oregon, wherever he is, with the 450, 454 million judgment.
Um, and he says something that says, quote, this was a good decision on the legal merits.
Does that exist?
I've never seen it.
Have any of you seen any argument, any journalistic effort, any news report whatsoever that supported the judge's decision that a $450 million judgment was fitting for this situation?
I've never seen one.
Have you?
Isn't that curious?
The entire news cycle, for however long, Has been, oh, we got him now, he's got to pay this, the courts have found him guilty.
But not a single person said the court made the right decision, even the people who want it to happen.
Do you know why?
Because it's not supportable.
It's not even slightly supportable.
It's exactly what it looks like.
Corrupt judge, corrupt prosecutors.
And even the people on the other side, Can see it plain as day, because if they couldn't see it plain as day, same as you can, they would have written stories to support their point of view.
Because that's their whole job.
Their entire job when they wake up in the morning is to write stories that support their worldview.
But they didn't do it this time.
I've never seen them not do it.
I'm pretty sure that when Russia collusion was in the headlines, there were untold stories about all this is definitely true.
When, when the hoax about Trump saying that you should drink bleach, which of course never really happened in the real world, they wrote, you know, multiple stories talking about how he really did that, which he didn't.
But this is the only case where there's a major, major story that goes one way in politics and the people who win They're not supporting their own side.
That's pretty obvious.
Pretty obvious that they know it's an op.
Would you agree?
If nobody can defend it, even on the side that likes it, they like it so much they're having orgasms on camera.
Have you seen any liberal talking about the $454 million judgment prior to it being reduced?
Did you see how they treated it?
They looked literally like they were having an orgasm.
And I mean literally.
They had an orgasm face.
It was disgusting.
It was arousing.
Yes.
I do watch The View just for the masturbation.
But that's just me.
You're weird too.
I just, I like me some whoopee.
That's all.
There's nothing wrong with that.
All right.
Um, you don't know what I'm kidding.
You probably don't know what I'm kidding.
Yeah.
I'm kidding.
I don't really masturbate to the view, but if I did, it'd be whoopee.
I'm just saying if I did.
All right.
Um, here's a, there's a new, new technique for couples therapy.
So apparently people notice that the traditional couples therapy where you go for an hour a week, wasn't working.
So they're going to do this high impact therapy, which apparently involves spending like 16 hours or something with your partner working through problems.
Now, when they said the problem with regular therapy, yeah, uh, the problem with regular therapy that the one hour a week didn't work here, here's why it didn't work.
Because when you came in next week, you didn't start where you left off.
You started with all the new things that happened that week that made you mad.
Now, do you know who already knew that?
Who already knew that once a week didn't work because all you did was come in with the new week of complaints about the other person.
And then you just started from scratch again and ran out of time and started all over.
Do you know who already knew that?
Every single person who ever went through couples therapy, as I have, the most waste of time I've ever seen in my life.
I've never seen a worse system for helping.
It definitely made things worse.
I can tell you for sure it made things worse.
And so I don't know if this new high-impact therapy will work, but it definitely recognizes the problem with the other system.
Now, what percentage of couple therapists do you think are Democrats?
Just asking.
What percent do you think are Democrats who go into the couples therapy therapist business?
Probably most.
One of the things I've noticed about Democrats is they can't tell, um, they can't analyze systems, meaning they can't see the longer term impact of what they do.
I can't imagine that you could do couples therapy More than having three clients ever without noticing that it doesn't work.
How could you not notice that it doesn't work?
It seems like really obvious.
Some people are saying that most of the couples therapists are different, but I think there are some jobs that people would be drawn to specifically because they can't understand how things work in the real world.
Like you wouldn't do the job if you knew it couldn't work, you know, once a week.
Yeah, there's money, but it doesn't seem to attract people who know how things work.
Because if you have options of doing things that are actually useful and make you money, you will take that one.
You're not going to pick the one that you can tell just by looking at it, couldn't possibly help anybody, but at least you get paid.
Right?
So there's probably a reason why Democrats dominate in that field.
They do have that ability to not understand how things work.
RFK Jr.
is picking his VP today.
He's doing that in Oakland.
Then afterwards, they're going to drive over to the In-N-Out.
Oh no, the In-N-Out closed.
The only one that's ever closed because it's in Oakland.
Because it's so dangerous to be in Oakland.
It's too dangerous to eat or work.
So In-N-Out just said, screw it, we're out of here.
But he's going to pick his VP today.
We don't know who it is.
But I would say there's at least a 50% chance he'll escape Oakland alive.
And maybe even stronger than when he went there.
Don't ever go to Oakland for anything.
And no, I'm not joking.
Don't ever go to Oakland for anything.
You'd be fucking insane.
It's just, it'd be like, you know, I think I'll go to, I think I'll go to the front line in Ukraine, you know, just cause I go shopping.
You don't go shopping at the front line in Ukraine.
Don't go to Oakland.
Please, don't go to Oakland.
I'm going to hear about that.
I'm practically walking distance from Oakland, so I've got a feeling that's going to come back to me.
All right, Mike Ben's had an interesting video again, you can see it in my feed or his, on the language changes.
So we started out with disinformation, and disinformation is bad.
Don't you agree?
You don't want any disinformation in your life, so that's bad.
But then it turned into misinformation, and then it turned into malinformation.
Do you know I had to change words from disinformation to misinformation to malinformation?
Because the existing words didn't let you censor the truth.
They had to come up with new words so they could censor the truth.
Now, I'm not saying that as somebody who's using hyperbole and twisting things around and saying, oh, they're censoring the truth.
No, they actually overtly, knowingly, intentionally, and with huge resources and very organized and very consistent, they tried to censor the truth.
They knew they were doing it.
And they said so explicitly.
It's in their writing.
It's in writing.
But the way they frame it was that the truth was too dangerous and had to be suppressed.
For example, if somebody said the truth about something that would make you panic less about, let's say, the pandemic, they would say, uh-oh, if people panic less, they won't take their vaccinations.
And that would be, they would say, bad for the world.
So therefore, they can't be trusted with the truth.
Because the truth will cause them to act in the wrong way, per how we think they should act.
Now, do you think that any Republicans were involved with this process?
No.
No, it was all Democrats.
A huge government, non-government, you know, I don't know how many hundreds of millions of dollars probably went into this effort.
It was sustained.
It was, it was, uh, the censorship was pushed by the government, by the government and their, and their cutouts and their, their, um, dancing monkeys to, uh, to try to censor things that they knew were true.
Now the domains where we know that was the case were elections, where if somebody said, for example, mail-in ballots are less secure.
Well, that would be true, but it would cause people to doubt the integrity of the election, and that's bad.
So that had to be stopped.
That would be malinformation.
So malinformation means harmful information, but it had to evolve from disinformation, which was potentially harmful, but also untrue.
So once they realized that they had to censor true things, The word didn't work anymore, so they just changed the word.
They had to make up, not make up, but they had to use a different word.
And that really happened in the actual real world.
And apparently part of this effort was to get the platforms, the social media platforms, to change their terms of service so that you couldn't delegitimize what the government was saying.
And delegitimizing is whatever they say it means.
Stop delegitimizing me.
You could make that work for anything, which would give the government unlimited control over the speech on platforms.
They could just say, well, you know, it might be true, but look how it's delegitimizing our systems.
So can't say it now.
Here's why only Democrats could be involved in this massive effort of censorship.
Because they don't understand how anything works.
If they understood how anything works, they would understand that this form of censorship is literally the whole point of the First Amendment.
And that, yes, it would be true.
That if you allowed people to speak freely, it would delegitimize the systems.
That's really the point of it.
The point of it is to delegitimize the systems.
Because they need to be delegitimized.
Now, if people are delegitimizing something that really shouldn't be, do you know what fixes that?
More free speech.
So that more people come in and say, no, this is a good thing, we should be doing it.
So, the fact that Democrats don't understand that massively suppressing things that are true That they don't want you to hear.
They think that's a good idea.
And that it can work out in a system's way, like in the long run, that that can work out for everybody.
Or even for themselves.
That can't work out.
And not only can it not work out, it can't go forever without being discovered.
It took a few years.
But of course it's going to be discovered.
And then we're going to be here.
So what delegitimizes the system?
Was the system delegitimized because people said mail-in ballots are less secure?
Or was it delegitimized by the fact that we had a massive, I don't know how many, hundreds of entities involved with government funding or indirect government funding to massively censor?
True things.
Nothing could delegitimize the system more than that.
And they didn't see that.
There was nobody in that whole deal that could see that this was coming?
That you can't get away with this forever?
Well, maybe they did think they would get away with it forever.
All right.
Did you see the pictures of Kate Starbird?
She was on 60 Minutes, and she was a part of this massive censorship operation.
And she was complaining that only 30% of the notes from the censors were taken and operated on by the social media people.
Now the funny thing is that that woman, Kate Starbird, who definitely fits into the batshit crazy woman category, Is a dead ringer for the most famous photo of a TDS victim screaming in agony.
So there's a famous picture of an angry leftist woman who looks exactly like, it's not her, but she looks exactly like it.
Which makes me ask the question, can you tell that people are batshit crazy just by looking at them?
I say yes, yes, and more yes.
I believe that we evolved so that you can identify who's gay or straight better than chance, and that's been tested, and you definitely can.
I believe that we can tell if somebody's sick by looking at them.
you know, not 100%, but really, really good.
We're good at it.
And we can definitely tell if somebody's crazy.
All right?
And the fact that she's on 60 Minutes, and I'm just watching and saying, But you're obviously crazy.
I can tell by just looking at you.
That suggests that maybe we're not being honest with what the real problems are.
Do you think it's useful to the world that I keep saying the real problem is batshit crazy women?
White women, specifically white women.
Do you think that's useful?
I think it is.
Because it's true.
It's obvious.
It's everywhere.
You can see it everywhere.
And, you know, I'm in my little silo.
I'm totally siloed because I'm blocked by every leftist organization.
But I think it helps to say it out loud.
Now, suppose I'm wrong.
Suppose I'm wrong.
And these women are actually our best citizens and they're doing things I don't understand because the problem's on my end.
What would be the solution to that?
More free speech.
Yeah.
Make your case why I'm wrong.
Let everybody see it.
Compare it to what I say.
You might be able to move the ball forward a little bit.
But the fact that I think it was dangerous to say this until I got cancelled, but no, it's batshit crazy white women are ruining everything in the country, and we've got to stop acting like insanity and mental health is some kind of a political opinion, because it's not.
Being unstable, mentally unstable, is not a political worldview.
It's you having a personal problem you're trying to work out in a way that affects other people.
We don't need that.
All right, the National Geographic has decided to permanently discontinue its Spelling Bee.
They used to do this big GOB, they called it, competition.
You've probably seen it.
It's been famous forever.
Big old Spelling Bee.
But they had to cancel it to replace it with something they call, something that would have, quote, more equitable participation.
Hmm.
What's that all about?
It's just a spelling bee, and my understanding is everybody gets to play, there's no barrier to entry, right?
So what would be, what would possibly be a diversity or equity problem with a spelling bee?
Huh.
It's kind of a mystery.
Well, let's look at the picture of the last 10 or the top 10 winners of the spelling bee.
Oh, ooh.
Every single one of them is Indian.
Might be Indian American or Indian in another country, but ethnically, 100% of all the spelling bee winners are Indian.
Well, you know what I say to that?
I think that's an obvious case of systemic racism against white people.
Because I can't think of any other reason that white people wouldn't be in the top 10 unless there was some discrimination, am I right?
Because it couldn't possibly be true that there's one A community of people who just takes the spelling bee more seriously and puts more work into it and have a lot of smart people in the group.
Couldn't possibly be that, could it?
Yeah, it's exactly that.
And the fact that reality becomes a problem, who does it become a problem for?
How many of you watching this show were surprised to hear that all the top 10 We're neither white nor black.
How many were surprised to hear that they weren't white and they weren't black?
I wasn't.
I wasn't.
But if you're a Democrat, what does this do to your worldview?
Because your entire worldview is based on the fact that if you gave everybody equal opportunity, you would get something like a diverse equitable outcome.
So they managed to create, somewhat accidentally, The single most equitable thing that has ever been designed in the history of humankind, which is, hey, kids, spell this.
And they didn't get the answer they were wanting.
Now, of course, there is definitely an income element to any of this.
School definitely has an income correlation.
So the black Americans do have a disadvantage in the income level.
But white Americans don't?
Where are all the white Americans?
Or the white people in general?
No, white people didn't do well.
Now, how do I feel about that?
Do I say to myself, no, we must have more equity to get more white people in this spelling bee?
No!
No, I think if white people are dumbasses and they can't win a spelling bee, then that's just the way it is.
That's it.
And I do think that there may be some cultural competitive thing where some group of people just want to compete in this particular thing more than other people do.
So, I mean, there's some of that.
But I love the fact that it just blows up the narrative.
It's hard to keep in your head the left narrative when you see something like this.
All right, well, the other big story is that a container ship hit a bridge in Baltimore and actually collapsed the bridge, tragically, with people on it.
Could have been worse.
It was 1.30 in the morning, so I suppose the traffic could have been greater.
But it looks like the ship lost its power.
Some say there was a fire on it.
It lost its electric, so it couldn't steer.
And so it went right into a pylon and collapsed the entire bridge.
Now, How do I make this story about me?
Okay, looking, looking.
How is this about me?
Okay, I got it.
I got it.
The mayor of Baltimore gave a speech, and the mayor's name is Mayor Brandon Scott.
Well, there it is.
There it is.
At least my name's in the story.
Now, Mayor Brandon Scott is a black man, which is only important So that you know that Dark Brandon is actually Joe Biden, who is the whitest person in the world.
He's Dark Brandon.
But Mayor Brandon Scott, who is actually African-American, he's not Dark Brandon.
He's just Brandon.
So you got to make sure that if you say dark Brandon, you're thinking of the white ashen looking driftwood kind of creature called Joe Biden.
That's dark Brandon, but the actual mayor who does have dark skin, he's just Brandon Scott, Brandon Scott.
Um, however, what's the name of the bridge?
That's the Francis Scott key bridge.
So.
Brandon Scott's talking about Francis Scott Key, while I'm talking about it.
Okay, okay.
I think we've made that enough about me.
And that was the important part.
Yes, we care about the victims, who have not been found, by the way.
It's very tragic.
And then, of course, all of you said, but is this because of DEI?
Well, I'm pretty sure there have been maritime accidents before anybody worried about DEI, but probably.
Probably.
Now, I say that only because there is a massive incompetence problem in general, so it could be just as easily that, you know, it could be anybody, but probably.
Yeah, if you had to bet, And it's not because, you know, any group is less competent.
It's because we operate to increase incompetence.
Our systems are designed to very directly increase the incompetence in our major industries.
Now, if you're on the left, you think that sounds racist and you don't understand what I mean.
It's because the left don't understand how anything works.
Here's the example again.
What happens if you don't have enough qualified people, but you do have a requirement that you won't get your bonus unless you increase your diversity?
Well, in the real world, nobody's going to give up their bonus, so they will lower their standards to get somebody that increases their diversity, even if we all assume that everybody in every demographic group could perform the same with the same background and support and education.
So it has nothing to do with anybody's anything.
It's not your genes.
It's not your culture.
It has nothing to do with your race.
They're just looking for the same group of people and there aren't enough.
So the people who can't find enough, they're not going to miss the goal because their bonus depends on it.
So they're just going to talk themselves into, well, maybe I wouldn't have hired this candidate in normal times because I would have kept looking.
But if I keep looking, What if I find somebody who's not diverse?
So maybe I shouldn't keep looking.
So you end up, even though you're talking yourself out of doing it, you end up lowering your standards, and there's no way around it.
There's no argument that it won't happen.
There's no observation that it doesn't happen.
Indeed, it can't not happen.
There is only one way it can go, and it has been going that way for 30 years.
30 years.
Um, so there you go.
Another example of Democrats not understanding how systems work.
Although there's no evidence there was any, you know, DEI-related thing in this specific case.
So it's a fog of war.
We'll wait to find out what that was.
All right.
But if you want to look at this through a more political lens, the fact that the first thing that half of the country, or maybe a third of the country, thought of is that it was a DEI problem.
Imagine being A Democrat, and you think you've got this terrific thing called DEI that's really going to help black people.
And then, then a ship collapses a bridge.
We have no information whatsoever that there are any black people involved in anything related to this, except the victims, I'm sure, because it was Baltimore.
But no evidence, no evidence whatsoever that there was any DEI problem, that had anything to do with competence.
It could have been just an act of God, a total coincidence, could have been anything.
But what does it say to the people promoting DEI that a third of the country assumed it was probably a DEI problem?
Don't you think that they would take that as useful information to incorporate in their desire to fix the world and realize that it was making things worse?
You It clearly made things worse.
If DEI did not exist, do you think even one of you would have thought immediately, I wonder if it's a diversity hire?
You wouldn't have even thought of it.
It would not be in your top 10 things to even think about.
But because they've just beaten us over the head with DEI, it's the first thing I think about.
Unfairly.
Unfairly.
It's all confirmation bias.
You know, it's not fair.
But that's what happens.
So Democrats not knowing how anything works gets them in that situation.
Let's see.
I guess the abortion pill I don't know how long you can wait and still take the pill.
I don't know the details.
if you thought the condom broke and you want to make sure you didn't get pregnant, for example, you could take that pill and remove all doubt, I guess. I don't know how long you can wait and still take the pill. I don't know the details. But those who are anti-abortion say that's an abortion pill. The people taking it probably don't think of it that way, although in a technical sense, I guess it is.
When it works, I guess it is.
So there's some brilliant woman, lawyer Erin Hawley, who's, I guess, Josh Hawley, Senator Josh Hawley's wife.
Interesting.
And she's trying to persuade the Supreme Court to make it illegal to sell this, what would be called an abortion pill.
Now, here's my first comment.
Comment number one.
One thing that the Republicans are getting right about this is sending their best woman to do the arguing.
Am I right?
Finally?
Finally?
If you're going to argue about what should be legal with abortion, please send the woman.
Please.
Democrats and Republicans, please send the woman.
They're the faces I want to see arguing it, whichever way it goes.
Like, I'm not even in the argument, because I think the women need to work it out, and then just tell us.
Just tell the guys what you decided.
So, in very much the same way, I think batshit crazy women should stay out of everything about national defense.
Borders, immigration, should stay out of that completely.
I think that men should stay out completely from the abortion argument.
Now, you have a right to do it.
And I understand your desire to do it and, you know, you're saving lives and all the reasons you do it.
I just think that we get a better outcome as a civilization if the people who have the most obvious skin in the game take the lead.
So if it's going to be about going to war, I don't want to hear from any women.
Honestly.
And by the way, women do a great job of staying out of war.
Have you noticed?
Have you noticed that?
Most of the war discussions are guys talking to guys.
Mostly.
Have you ever noticed that?
It's mostly guys talking to guys.
And part of the reason that is, you know, maybe we're more interested naturally in war things.
But we also know it's our job.
Every guy knows that war is our job.
It's not your job.
It's not the women's job.
It's our job.
So we talk about it because we think that's part of the process.
Um, every 20 seconds, I have to mention Margaret Thatcher.
So thank you for the reminder.
So just a note for the stupid people who are watching.
There are probably not many, but, but just for the few stupid people, um, I am aware that Margaret Thatcher was an unusually talented person and one of many examples in which people are infinitely different.
And you really can't make a generalization about any individual based on General averages.
However, general averages, when they have a biological basis, are more useful than other things.
You know, when you're talking about groups, if there's a biological difference, one group has babies, one group far less having babies.
One group is testosterone-filled fighters, of which there are too many anyway.
Men.
And another group that is precious and needs to take care of bringing in the next generation, while the men are killing the men who would stop them from doing it.
So our job is to kill the other men, basically.
So you can have your baby and survive.
So it's good that they sent their best woman, because apparently, at least the news is saying that she's great at her job.
However, there's another side of the story.
Are Republicans trying to lose?
I can't think of anything that would snatch victory away from Trump faster than this.
Is this purely a coincidence that they picked the worst possible time to have this conversation?
This would have been a great court case to bring up, oh, let's say next year.
Yeah, like next year, this would be great.
This almost looks like a Democrat op to fool Republicans into losing.
Because, again, I'm not going to give you any opinions on health care, but I know real people.
I know real people in the real world.
And every young woman who has ever used this pill or thought of using this pill, you just lost them forever.
You don't gain a single vote by this.
The GOP gains zero votes.
Zero.
Not a single person changed their vote because of this.
But you're going to lose an entire generation of young women.
Why do you do this?
Is this just on principle?
Is that why?
You're arguing this just on principle?
No, I'm not arguing that that would be a bad idea.
I'm just saying Do you understand why something so destructive to the entire country would be happening?
Let me put it in other terms.
Many of you think the abortion question is, you know, right at the top of our interests, and I won't argue that it's not, because your point of view would support that.
If you believe that's life, that makes sense that it's at the top of your list.
Other people have different opinions about it, but it makes sense it's at the top of your list.
But so is survival of the country.
And I agree with Elon Musk's take that if the Republicans don't win in this round, we might actually be out of business as a country.
We might all be dead.
Like, literally.
That is the risk.
There is an existential risk to this election that I've never seen before.
Because the Democrat policies are so obviously self-destructive, There's no way we can handle another four years of it.
I don't think we have the capacity for another four years of it.
So, everything is tough choices.
If you are anti-abortion, pro-life, and you think that these pills are violating your feelings about what God would want, I can see why you'd think this would be a high priority.
But be honest about it.
You're throwing away everything for it.
Is that what you planned?
Did you plan to throw away everything?
The whole country?
All 300 million of us?
You're going to put us at risk of dying?
Plus all the children that can't be born if 300 million people die?
Which one of these approaches saves the most lives?
Winning the election?
Or winning on this case and banning this drug?
Which one saves more lives in the long run?
I'm pretty sure that this is going to kill us all.
That's my opinion.
And again, that's not an abortion opinion.
I'm giving you no opinion on abortion or this pill.
I'm completely out of that discussion.
I want the women to figure it out, including Erin Hawley.
She's a woman.
She gets to be in this argument.
She earned her way into the argument.
But I didn't.
I would just suggest that this could crash the whole fucking thing.
Who does this?
I don't understand it.
Can anybody explain to me why Josh Hawley would send his wife to destroy everything in America by maybe winning this case?
And by the way, is she going to win?
Do you know if she'll win her case?
I don't see why she would win it.
Yeah.
So I don't know about this.
There's something about this that I don't quite understand.
But can I make this story about me?
All right, let me try.
This is going to take some work, people.
Bear with me.
This will take my greatest efforts to make this story about women taking a pill about me.
I've got it.
I've got it.
When I was listening to this story on the news, one of the proponents of the pill said that it's especially useful Because you can prescribe the pill by telehealth.
You're welcome.
You're welcome.
Yeah.
Now that assumes you want the pill.
If you want a band, then I'm your enemy, I guess.
Yeah.
But telehealth is apparently one of the things that makes that abortion pill so useful.
People like to talk to their doctor before they do that.
And they may not want to go in person.
They may want to.
Just spend some money and kind of privately get an opinion before they go in that direction.
So yes, Scott for the win.
And I don't mean Francis Scott Key, and I don't mean Brandon Scott.
There's just a lot of Scott in this news today.
Anyway, the Attorney General for Missouri, Missouri is being great lately, very active.
The Attorney General, Andrew Bailey, is doing a suit against Media Matters.
force them to turn over their documents about soliciting donations to bully advertisers on the X platform.
So Media Matters did this whole fake op where they tried to show that there was, I don't know, more antisemitism or more Nazis or something on X.
And they did this totally fake test that they got busted on.
So there were no, the story was completely fake.
It was just an op.
And now Missouri attorney general is gonna sue them and get to the bottom of this and maybe uncover their op.
Media Matters is a illegitimate, just a horrible entity that should be destroyed.
Hmm.
I Mike Pence, again, I saw him mention that between 2017 and 2022, when we were not aware of it, the censorship regime was really running the country.
So if you thought you had something like a democracy or something,
You didn't know that everything we thought was being manipulated by people behind the scenes, as I talked about earlier with all the NGOs and censorship people and fake fact-checkers, and that between 2017 and 2022, America didn't know who was running the country, because our opinions were being given to us by the news, and we thought the news was something like the news always was, and we thought social media was
People just saying their thoughts, and you can see everybody's... That wasn't the case.
The social media had been weaponized and turned into a massive brainwashing operation, along with the classic news, and that we were under a total brainwashing regime that I would call an insurrection.
If I were writing the history of America, I would say that between 2017 and 2022, we had a form of government we didn't elect.
We had a hidden Army of censors who were changing what people could say and get away with, and they were trying to turn January 6th into an insurrection.
They were literally changing history in front of us.
And so we thought we were voting for people and getting them elected.
None of that was happening.
Because even if you say, well Scott, there's no evidence that the election was rigged, I say this is the evidence the election was rigged.
If you change how people think, you change how they vote.
And this was, for several years, a heavy brainwashing operation to change how people thought in a political context.
That is a rigged election.
Because we were not aware that there was a gigantic censorship effort until the Twitter files.
If we'd been aware of it, Then we could have said, OK, at least it's transparent, you know, and then that would be different.
But if you're not aware that you're part of a massive, highly funded brainwashing operation, and it is brainwashing, it's not anything else.
It was brainwashing.
Straight up.
No hyperbole.
Brainwashing.
Right.
I don't use that.
I'm not overusing the word.
It was planned.
Executed, professional, widespread, huge scope, well-funded, organized, brainwashing for five years.
And during that time, the fake news introduced, I would say, at least 20 known hoaxes.
Does that sound right?
I didn't count them, but I think that's about right.
When you say there were at least 20 organized ops, There were literally hoaxes that the fake news and the fake social media tried to present to us as true.
About 20 of them.
So yeah, that was a dark, dark time that we knew something was wrong.
By the way, we all knew something was wrong, right?
Every one of us knew something's wrong.
We just didn't know what it was.
Well, that's what it was.
Now we know.
You want some more evidence of everything I'm talking about?
Well, here you go.
So NBC hires Ronna... What's her last name?
McDaniel?
What's Ronna's last name?
I swear to God I can't remember it because I always confuse it with Ronald McDonald.
Literally, I confuse it with Ronald McDonald.
What's her last name?
Is it McDaniel?
All right, you're not telling me.
I think the comments are a little slow.
All right, well, you know what I'm talking about.
So she was the head of the RNC, but then she was replaced.
So NBC hires her so they can have McDaniel.
Okay.
Yeah, Ronna McDaniel.
All right.
So she goes to work for NBC as being their Republican voice so that they could have an alternate voice.
Now, that's a good idea, don't you think?
Don't you think it's a good idea for NBC News to have an alternate voice?
Now, as I pointed out, when a news organization invites an alternate voice, they don't pick the best one.
The only time that that happened, it was a mistake, when CNN hired Steve Cortez.
Apparently they didn't look into him enough.
They didn't do the research.
They must have thought he wouldn't do a good job, so he'd be that Republican crazy guy who would say all the crazy stuff and then they'd mock him.
And instead he debunked the Fine People hoax on their live air.
That's right.
He debunked the fine people hoax in detail on their show live.
And then he was fired.
So that's my point.
If they ever hired somebody from the other side and that person did a good job, they'd have to fire him.
So that tells you what they think about Rana.
I hate to say it, but the only reason, um, The only reason they hired her is they don't think she'd be good at it.
Am I wrong?
You tell me.
Is that unfair?
That the only reason they hired her is they think she'd be bad at it.
They also would be reasonably assuming that she wouldn't be too pro-Trump at the moment.
Am I right?
Because, you know, the Trump organization kind of pushed her out.
Don't you think she's not super pro-Trump at the moment?
That would be kind of perfect for their audience, wouldn't it?
So I think the management made a good management hiring decision for what they're trying to do, which is sell their narrative and then makes the other narrative look a little weaker.
Right on point.
Right on point.
Perfect.
What did their staff on MSNBC, their sister network I guess, what did they say?
And also some of the ex people from NBC News.
Well, Chuck Todd said it was just the worst terrible thing and Morning Joe said it was horrible and they would never invite her on the show.
And then Racial Mad Now did her thing and said, you know, she's got to talk to her bosses and say, you know, this is wrong and they need to apologize and correct it.
So, here's the awkward part, which is delicious.
It's awkward, but delicious.
And it goes like this.
For years, NBC News and MSNBC had been telling us that January 6th was an actual insurrection.
It wasn't.
But they've been telling their audience that for years.
And then their bosses, totally giving away the game, They hire one of the main insurrectionists, according to MSNBC News, somebody who apparently was helping to try to keep Trump in office by negotiating who the electors were, etc.
All legal.
Completely legal to talk to people and try to persuade them to do one thing or another.
It was all legal.
And certainly, I don't think there was anybody on the Republican side who had any problem with her for trying to make sure the election was fair and to, you know, put a placeholder in so they could check long enough to see if it was fair.
Nobody on the right has a problem with that.
That's what a lot of people on the right were doing.
But on the left, she would be considered one of the deepest insurrectionist, treasonous monsters.
Because that's how they portrayed it.
Just treasonous January 6th monsters and Trump too.
So what would you do if you had been an on-air host at MSNBC and you spent years telling your audience that these treasonous people should be in jail and then they hire one of them and put him in the chair next to you?
The bosses know that January 6th wasn't an insurrection.
If they thought it was an insurrection, they weren't going to hire Ronald McDaniel.
It's very obvious that their own bosses know it was an op.
It was never real.
But all the people who have been telling you it's real have egg on their face, because how could their bosses hire this insurrectionist, according to them?
If any of their news was true for the last several years.
Now that's hilarious.
Totally busted for their management signaling as strongly as possible that their own coverage was always fake and they knew it.
I don't see how else you could... Am I going too far?
Do you think that's too much of an interpretation?
I don't think it is.
I don't know.
All right, so that's funny too.
The Mexican president says that the flow of migrants will continue until the U.S.
meets his demands.
I think that was just maybe Fox News phrasing it that way, as demands.
I think what the president of Mexico said is that if the United States did this series of things, including giving money to Central American countries so their economies are better and you know dropping the sanctions on Venezuela and Cuba etc That that would make a difference.
I don't think any of that would make too much of a difference I think he's just negotiating and trying to take the pressure off himself But I want to remind you that the reason our borders are open is not because we're not doing what Mexico asked for It's not because it's hard to do to close it.
It's because The cartels are working with the Mexican government and the other governments in South Central America.
And the U.S.
government is apparently working with the cartels as well.
So the reason the cartels are working with impunity is because they're on our team.
That's why.
If you think there's any other reason, then you're going to have a tough time explaining all of your observations.
All of them.
All of them.
None of them make sense if they're on the other team.
Because we have the ability to do massive damage to the cartels, but we're not.
And the reason is very obvious and simple once it's explained to you.
The cartels, of course, already control their own governments in the countries that they are in below the border.
We need to control those governments as well.
Because, for example, we want to keep China out, and we don't want them to turn anti-American.
So we need to control these other little governments in our hemisphere, as we always have.
It's good for our security.
And the cost of that is that we let the cartels earn their money.
There's no other explanation.
If you can come up with anything else that explains observation, I'd be willing to hear it.
But I don't think it's just about the Democrats who think they want to increase the census and get more people and more representatives and more voters.
It's also that.
But the main thing is that the cartels are on our team and they want the people to come in and they make money on it.
And that's why.
Just follow the money.
It's as simple as that.
David Boxenhorn had a fascinating theory.
For the real reason that America is so bent on solving global warming.
Now I'm not going to say I embrace this theory or hypothesis, but it's fun.
So I'm going to tell you.
Here's a fun hypothesis.
You know how everything's about Russia, because we got all these Russia spies and Russia experts, so everything's about Russia?
Well, you know how even our intelligence services, the military, have even been saying that global warming is a big problem for the military?
What if, as David Boxenhorn cleverly hypothesizes, what if it's all about Russia?
Because if Russia gets warmer, it's going to have a better economy, and therefore a better military.
What if the warming makes it easier for the North Pole water to be open and more navigable for Russia?
Well, then Russia would have a military advantage, because they'd be able to use that water.
Probably an economic advantage.
Now, what is the climate in the United States currently?
If you were to compare the economic benefit, and even the military benefit, of the current location of America, you know, where it is physically in the world, it's kind of perfect.
Because we're too far away from the people who want to invade us.
The people on our border don't have the power to do it, and the people in other places, they'd have to travel an ocean, and it's just sort of too hard.
So we have a great military advantage by being where we are, and not in Europe, for example.
And then we also have an amazing, an amazing economic benefit by being right where we are.
You want some warm weather?
We got it.
You want some cold weather?
We got you covered.
We got everything.
And so we have an economy that can function great All year round, because our weather is conducive for that.
But Russia, I would think, probably slows down a little in the winter.
Maybe a more harsh situation.
And if things get warmer there, their economy and their military would probably thrive.
And maybe we just are trying to stop that from happening.
Now again, it's just a fun hypothesis.
It assumes that people are thinking that far in advance and they think you can actually stop the warming, etc.
So I don't know if those assumptions hold up.
But it is interesting, because I do think it's true that if the temperature of the planet goes up a few degrees, it's probably good for Russia.
Do you think the basic assumption is true?
A few degrees warmer would make Russia better off, not worse, because it's a cold place.
And warm is almost always better.
Yeah, because it won't get too warm in Russia.
All right, speaking of Russia, Garry Kasparov, who's a big Putin critic, he thinks that this whole attack looks really suspicious.
And he doesn't think that they're really just ISIS.
He thinks they might be ISIS, but they might be paid or organized by some other shadowy creature, and he thinks it might even be Putin.
Because he and others believe that Putin came to power partly because there was some big apartment complex that blew up, and that maybe that was a false flag too.
So there's some thought that Putin has murdered Russians before, and made it look like it was somebody else, specifically Islamic people, and that this would be very much like the last one, and that Putin doesn't care how many Russians die, he only cares about power, that's what Kasparov would say, and therefore it looks more obviously like Putin did it to himself,
To give him a reason to recruit more soldiers and to make his country think that being in Ukraine makes sense.
So, he's using it.
He's still blaming Ukraine for it, which would be consistent with him using it for political purposes.
Well, I don't know.
I find Kasparov not to be a super credible source.
He's definitely an anti-Putin guy.
So he's going to take every story and turn it into anti-Putin stuff.
So his credibility is low because he's a one-trick pony.
He just sees anti-Putin stuff everywhere.
But it doesn't mean he's wrong about this.
He could be right about this.
Sometimes being the most suspicious person just means you're right more often than not.
Being suspicious is a pretty good play.
So I don't know what's going on there.
I will say that What we're told about that attack is not yet tracking.
It isn't tracking at all.
Yeah.
Because ISIS seemed a little bit weak about it.
And, I don't know.
Here's how you tell.
If you see another ISIS terror attack, let's say in the next six months, it was ISIS.
And it's just their thing they're going to be doing.
If you see no ISIS attacks in the next six months, given that we assume they could do something like this anytime they wanted, you know, getting, getting somebody some firearms is pretty easy.
You know, getting them a bomb might be harder, but firearms probably pretty easy in a military kind of country.
So if you see more of it, it was ISIS.
If you don't see any of it for the next six months, might've been something else.
Might've been us.
There are submarines under the North Pole.
True.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, the comments seem to have stopped on the other platforms except for locals, and I'm going to say goodbye to the other platforms.
I'm going to try to see if I can ... We're going to see if I can turn off everything but locals so that you can stay on your feed where you are.
