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, Grace Price, Food & Lifestyle Cancer, Loneliness Crisis, Kathy Griffin, RFK Jr., US Budget Dashboard, Trump Fair Trial Poll, Bidenomics, Commercial Real Estate Vacancies, Jailing Dissidents, J6 Political Prisoners, President Trump, Anti-Trump Brainwashing, Presidential Qualities Polling, Ted Lieu Stanford Donation, Columbia Anti-Semitism, Anti-Alabama Abortion Ad, Kurt Olsen, Domain Software Allegations, Climate Change Thermometers, Evolution Debate, Mayor Bass, Strong Anti-Biden Ad, Freedom vs Safety, Criminal Record Discrimination, Ukraine 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
Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization so far.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and there's never been a finer time in the history of the 13.9 billion years of this universe, and before that.
But if you'd like to take this up to a level that no one's ever seen, all you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass of tankard chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine here today.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Yeah, we're all good now.
It's all coming together.
All right, let's look at the news, the silly stuff, and the serious stuff.
Well, I like to follow the AI news on several accounts on the X platform.
One of them is Rowan Cheung, who's a good follow.
C-H-E-U-N-G.
Rowan.
Rowan Cheung.
Anyway, he reports that Apple is reportedly building a LLM, so an AI, that will be completely on the device.
Your phone will not have to talk to anything to be smart.
It will be AI on its own.
And that could be a really big deal if you're not sure why.
Because, first of all, the speed would be completely different.
If you've had the experience of trying to have a conversation with an AI, here's my impression of it.
Hey AI, how are you this morning?
I am very good.
How are you?
Well, I'm pretty good, too.
What's the news today?
The weather will be 59 degrees.
And that awkward pause just completely ruins the conversational element.
You know you're talking to a computer because of the pause.
But if it runs all locally, and it's got the same speed as conversational speed, It's going to be pretty awesome.
All right.
And it will give you better privacy, presumably.
Are you following the story of Grace Price?
So she's the teenage kid who's, well, I don't know, teenage.
Is she still a kid?
I don't know if she's 18 or not.
But she's got a documentary about how our lifestyle and food especially are giving us cancer.
And she had a stat that she has from a source, she didn't make it up herself, that says that up to 95% of cancer is caused by your lifestyle and environmental factors.
And there's a pool of studies that show that that's the case.
Does that sound right to you?
Yeah, Grace Price is her name.
Do you think that 95% of cancer is caused by lifestyle and food?
It's not impossible.
Yeah.
To me, it sounds high, but not crazy.
It could be.
It could be that high.
But here's what I feel about her.
You know, when Greta was talking about climate change, I thought to myself, this isn't really helping, because I want to hear from scientists and people who know what they're talking about.
But then when Grace Price does her thing, I'm totally on board.
Should I be using the same standard with her as I do with Greta?
Or is it because I think that Greta might be wrong, and I think that Grace Price is right, that I'm judging her expertise by just confirmation bias?
And the answer is, yes, that's exactly what I'm doing.
But I'm aware of it.
Sometimes the best you can do about your own bias is just to do a little audit.
And say to yourself, all right, if this situation were a little different, or if this person telling me were a little different, would I be receiving this differently?
And the answer is yes.
Yes.
Yeah.
So basically, I'm hearing what I want to hear from Grace Price.
And so to me, it all looks very scientific and factual.
And by the way, I really think that.
But I'm also aware that if I were wrong, I would think the same thing.
So I've got that little bit of, just a little bit of self-filter, but it's not stopping me.
I still say she looks right to me, but just be aware of it.
Well, I think the concept, the topic of loneliness is becoming a bigger and bigger issue.
And I think it's, there's no end in sight for that.
There's nothing that looks like it's changing it immediately.
It will get fixed, like everything.
We'll fix the loneliness problem.
But even Kathy Griffin was saying in public, and somehow I think this is useful, I like it when public figures talk about their own experience.
I like it less when public figures tell me what kind of apples to eat and Stuff like that, because I think they're outside their expertise.
But when somebody just tells me about their own experience and it's some universal, relatable thing, yeah, yeah, do that, please.
So here's what Kathy Griffin says.
And by the way, I remind you, I know that a lot of you have a political opinion about her that's negative, but I've worked with her.
She was the voice of Alice in the Dilbert animated show.
And I really liked her.
So Kathy Griffin in person, very, very likable.
You'd like her too.
Anyway, she says, I guess she got divorced recently.
She says, divorced women.
I'm talking to you.
I am four months divorced and I feel weak because I just can't get used to waking up alone in the hotel room.
Uh, blah, blah, blah.
And I'm having trouble adjusting.
Any ladies out there, you gotta, uh, how did you get to a place where you can enjoy waking up alone?
And she has some dogs.
She brings one with her.
She says now without dwelling on her specific case, I like the fact that she could be a famous public figure and that she can say with great vulnerability that loneliness is like a, it's really a crippling problem for a lot of people.
Now the only thing I can add to this story that would be useful is that, um, as you know, I have a subscription service on the Locals platform, scottadams.locals.com.
Many of them are watching right now, but I also do a, uh, For the subscribers, I do a private man cave just about every night from my garage slash man cave and Although I didn't design it this way.
It wasn't designed for this purpose There's a good rule in marketing That the audience tells you what your product is if you ever heard that You don't tell what the audience you don't tell your customers what your product is you try I mean, that's what marketing is But in the end, they tell you what the product is.
They tell you why they bought it and what it's good for and why they're going to buy it again.
And apparently the Man Cave turned into a lot of people who don't have anybody to talk to during the day get something like a personal experience.
Because when I do the Man Caves, I'm just interacting with the comments the entire time.
So it's like a conversation for shy people.
Like if you're not brave enough to go out and like make a friend or join a group or, you know, be part of some larger organization where you just meet people, uh, you can do it with me.
So I've, I've sort of morphed my ambitions for the man cave, which honestly was just for me.
I started doing the man cave just cause I thought it'd be nice to chat with people.
It'd be fun.
But I've, I've learned that it's importance to several hundred people.
Is that sometimes it's the only human-like experience they have during the entire day.
The only human experience.
So it feels like a necessity at this point.
So I'd invite any of you who want to subscribe to that.
It's pretty much every night at different times, but California time, usually between 4.30 and 6.30 I start it.
Anyway, RFK Jr.
was at a Michigan rally.
And he says provocatively, I'm going to put the entire U.S.
budget on blockchain, so that every American can look at every budget item in the entire budget, anytime they want, 24 hours a day.
And then you can see if things cost too much or were wasted money.
Now, I like where that's heading, and I love how RFK Jr.
gets earned media.
Now, whether or not this specific idea is ever implemented, Don't you love the fact that he said it in public?
That this is what I call the bad idea that's a good idea.
Meaning that in sort of Hollywood writer's terms, sometimes you throw on a bad idea to give you something to react to and say, well, not that, but it reminds me of something that would actually work.
So I love the fact that he's throwing out this idea.
If you ask me, is blockchain the right way to do it and all that?
I don't know.
I don't know.
I mean, my first instinct is blockchain would probably just slow it down.
I don't know exactly what you're buying by having it on the blockchain.
So I'd have questions about the specifics.
But I love the fact that he's putting it out there.
And it's provocative, and it turns into a story.
So he gets all this free publicity.
I'm talking about it in a positive way.
But I would go further.
If you want to control the government, build a dashboard.
If you want to control the whole government, build a dashboard.
One dashboard that shows you the key political things, the budgets, the status, the laws that are being, you know, coming, who voted for what.
But you'd have to design it so well that it's not overwhelming.
The way to do it wrong is there'd be a solid page of government boring data, and you'd have to look for whatever you wanted, and it'd be just so boring and busy you couldn't use it.
But suppose You open it up and it was, let's say, four to six charts that just showed you the direction of things.
Let's say one of the charts is crime.
So you could click on it and then you could explode it by city.
Maybe you could look at it by, you know, Democrat versus Republican.
That'd be a little more provocative.
But I love to do that, to find out whose policies seem to be working.
And imagine if you could just drill down on all of those questions, and then at the bottom, you could get the best pro and con argument on that topic.
So the data itself doesn't tell you the story, you still need the interpretation, but you want the best ones.
So imagine if you had that dashboard that any citizen could log into, and you could just see everything that's going on, money-wise.
I think it'd be amazing.
Anyway, so I think whoever builds that dashboard will necessarily control the world, because what you put on the front page will be what everybody cares about.
So effectively you could front-run all of the news.
You can make the news entities useless by simply having a dashboard that wouldn't be the news per se, but if you were the one who controlled what got highlighted and what got maybe put down in priority, you would effectively control the country.
Because if you wanted to highlight, for example, we wasted a bunch of money on this thing, you just put it on the front page and say, oh, it's just the dashboard.
So that's how easy it would be to control the whole country.
Rasmussen did some polls on whether people thought Trump was gonna get a fair trial in New York City.
42% of likely US voters think that it's likely Trump will be able to get a fair trial.
42%.
I don't know how good you are in math, but let me fill you in.
Forty-two is less than half.
Less than half.
Less than half of the citizens polled in the United States, voters, likely voters, don't believe that it's even possible to get a fair trial in New York City if you're Trump.
Now, how many people do you think say not only would Trump get a fair trial, Um, but it's very likely.
What percentage do you think say it's very likely Trump will get a fair trial in New York City?
Let's see how close you can get on this.
Guess.
Very good.
Very good.
Yeah.
A lot of you are guessing 25% and it's 27%.
It's 27.
Yeah.
But I'm going to round that off and say you're 25 is correct.
And once again, Your brilliance, if not your sex appeal, is coming through again.
Let me say that the sapiosexuals who were attracted to intelligent people are probably just having quite a time now.
Because when they see how smart you are that you can answer a question like that with no prior knowledge.
You just all knew it was around the corner.
Amazing, amazing.
But 51% think Trump won't get a fair trial and 31% say it's not at all likely.
Now here's my thing.
If you have a situation in which the general public, which is pretty much paying attention because it's Trump, they are paying attention.
If more than half say he can't get a fair trial, How in the world do you put him in jail if he's convicted?
If more than half of the people watching say it's probably not fair, how do you do that?
You can't maintain the system if you put him in jail while we're watching, with half the people thinking it's unfair, or very likely to be unfair.
So it seems to me that should be grounds for challenging it, but I don't think legally it is, is it?
I go back to the interesting story of how the speed limits are determined in residential neighborhoods.
I think I've told you this before.
Maybe it's just a California thing.
I don't know.
But the way they determine the speed limit in a new road, if it's a residential, not a freeway, because those are just standard speeds, but in the neighborhoods, they'll actually monitor how people actually drive before they put up the speed limit signs.
And they say, okay, it looks like people just naturally think they can drive 45 on the street, so we'll lower it to 35, because we know they'll cheat a little bit.
So, the idea here is that you create a law that you believe people will accept as reasonable, because you've looked at all the reasons.
Subtract a 10, everybody knows you subtract a 10, everybody's happy.
So, a very good way to run a country is to see if people think it would be fair And then do the thing that most people think would be fair.
That's stable.
But if you do the thing that most people, literally majority, think is not likely to be fair, and you do it right in front of them, that's your worst case scenario.
Worst case scenario.
They're doing that right in front of us.
Well, let's talk about the plot to make Bidenomics look good.
Zero Hedge is talking about commercial real estate foreclosures, their highest level in a decade.
I don't know how big a deal that is yet, if you say the highest in a decade, because we do go through periods of better and worse for real estate.
But it's not good.
Certainly not good.
And a lot of people ask the question, why don't they just turn them into public housing?
Why don't you just turn all these offices into condos?
And the answer is, the only way that would work according to Goldman is if you drop the prices 50%.
So in other words, you can charge way more for a business office per square foot than you can for a condo.
So yes, it's physically possible to change them into housing.
But you would lose your entire economic point of it.
So, actually, you can't.
The only way you can do it is if, I suppose, you know, everybody who owns these goes broke, and then the value of the thing goes down, and then somebody buys it for a penny on the dollar, and then they can turn it into residential housing.
So, also wrong plumbing, as somebody's pointing out.
Now, anything can be fixed.
You know, wrong plumbing could be turned into right plumbing at some expense, but very expensive.
All right, but it does look like, as Zero Hedge notes, that the Fed and everybody are probably trying to just push the problem forward so that Trump's in office when it collapses.
It looks like a setup.
It looks like they know it's going to collapse, and if they can just hold it off until Trump gets elected, it's his problem.
Because I think 90% of politics Is hoping that the economy did well during your, your rule.
So you can say is what you did.
Cause I honestly, I can't really think of anything that Bidenomics did.
I mean that, you know, in theory it lowered some drug prices, but I don't think that's like, you know, resounding through the economy in general.
So a lot of it is, uh, you know, this is a, the Dilbert filter on things, things happen because they're going to happen anyway.
And then the leaders take credit for it.
That's the way the real world works.
People take credit for things that were going to happen anyway.
That's how everything works.
So let's check in on the plot to assassinate Trump.
As you know, the plot to assassinate Trump is to make it look like an accident.
So they're trying to talk him up as a threat to democracy so that lots of people have a reason to kill him because they think he's Hitler. So first you create the motivation and you brainwash you know millions of people into thinking, oh my god if I could stop Hitler I could do it.
So that part we see in action that's the whole he's trying to ruin democracy thing. Here's AOC talking about it. She said Trump who is not, he seeks to dismantle American democracy.
I am taking that personally, very seriously, because we will not be able to organize for any movement toward anything if we are facing the jailing of dissidents.
This is the kind of authoritarianism that he threatens.
We have to take it seriously.
The jailing of dissidents.
Where have I seen something like that happen before?
The jailing of dissidents.
Well, a dissident would be like a protester.
A protester.
Where have I seen a protester being put in jail for protesting?
Oh, the entire January 6th hoax, in which the thoroughly corrupt members of Congress, who should all be in jail, the ones on the January 6th committee, should definitely be in jail.
And if Trump only does one thing, and he puts them all in jail, for real crimes, I don't want him to make up any crimes.
It has to be a real crime.
But that would be one of the best things to happen in the country.
And if it ripped the country apart, I'm okay with that.
Totally down to that.
So here's the thing with somebody calling you a bluff.
You've got to call them on it.
It's your only choice.
Otherwise, they own you.
If people can scare you and bluff you and threaten you and make you change what you do, well, they own you.
If you don't want to be owned, You've gotta punch him in the teeth, so to speak.
Not really.
No violence.
So, obviously the January 6th people were jailed for being dissidents.
This is another case we've seen so many of the Democrats accusing Republicans of exactly what they're doing as they're talking.
As she's talking.
Her team is putting dissidents in jail.
As she's talking.
Now, what would be the example of where any Republican has put a dissident in jail?
I can't think of any.
Can you think of any?
Even one?
Oh, maybe Assange.
But that wasn't really just a Republican thing.
And he wasn't a citizen, so that's a little bit different.
And we didn't put him in jail, so that is different.
All right, so...
Part one of trying to kill Trump is going well for the Democrats.
Because the Democrats can say this out loud without being challenged, at least without being challenged by their own team, they can say that Trump is trying to dismantle democracy.
Now, as Mike Pence has taught you, that creates the predicate so that the intelligence people can do everything that they would do internationally.
Two other countries.
They can do it internally because, hey, if you're trying to save democracy, there's, you know, you've got to pull out all the stops.
So this is when you see the Democrats say he's trying to get rid of democracy because it's an authoritarianism because of his authoritarianism.
You should interpret that as an op.
It's part of the brainwashing of America and it's to get him killed or jailed.
And that's what it is.
And there's no other way to see it, really, if you're even a little bit aware of what's happening.
So, that's... Now, how about the plot to jail him?
So, Jonathan Turley is talking about that.
So, if they don't jail him and get him killed in prison, they're going to try to kill him on the outside by making people think he's Hitler.
And also by taking away his Secret Service protection.
So the Democrats are trying to do all three.
Paint him as Hitler, take away his Secret Service protection, and just as an insurance policy, try to put him in jail on fake charges, or trumped-up charges.
So, Jonathan Turley is talking about the fact that Bragg, the DA, is going to start talking to David Pecker, who is the Head of the National Enquirer who's part of the story.
Now as Turley points out, Pecker's part of the story has nothing to do with the charges.
Do you understand that?
So Pecker had to do with the suppressing of the story of Stormy Daniels, but there are no charges and no law broken to suppress the story.
So nobody's in trouble for suppressing the story.
And the one and only thing that David Pecker knows is that part, that there was an effort to suppress the story about Stormy Daniels.
But since there's no crime involved with that, and it doesn't tell you anything about the other crimes, why is that the first witness?
Why would he be the first witness if nothing he has to say is relevant to any of the crimes that are being charged?
Well, because you're watching a porno, and all pornos start the same.
So Bragg is the fluffer, and his job is to get the pecker situation all firmed up.
So he's got to get that pecker situation all firmed up.
So Bragg being the fluffer, he'll get that going.
And that's really just to prepare you for the fucking we're all going to get.
So you always start by firming up the pecker before giving the good hard fucking that the public is waiting for.
And Trump, of course.
So that makes sense.
Meanwhile, on Meet the Press, the fake news is having trouble supporting their own fake polls, because here's just, here's a current poll that was presented on Meet the Press.
So, their own people are presenting their own results, it looks like.
And I read this on Eric Abernathy's post.
He's a good follow-through on X. So, here are some of the things.
So, comparing Trump to Biden on handling a crisis.
Trump is up 46 to 42.
Who has a strong record as president?
Trump has better, 46 to 39.
Who is competent and effective?
Trump is better, 47 to 36.
That's a pretty big difference, incompetent and effective.
Dealing with inflation and cost of living?
Trump by a mile, 52 compared to 30.
And then has the necessary mental and physical health?
Trump by a mile, 45% to 26.
Now, I don't think you need to brag about 45% and think that you're mentally and physically capable.
But in the context of politics, there's a big difference.
It does suggest that even the Democrats think that Biden is degraded.
Now imagine, if you will, that you've polled the public on each of these individual qualities of a president, and they do look like the important ones, right?
Handling a crisis, strong record, competent and effective, mentally healthy, physical, dealing with inflation, those are important things.
That's all the big stuff.
And Trump dominates all the big topics.
So, wouldn't that suggest that the election isn't going to be anywhere near close?
What do the polls tell you?
Oh, it's about a tie.
How in the world are we supposed to believe any of this?
That the detailed polling shows Trump just annihilating Biden on all the important stuff.
All of it.
There's nothing that Biden's leading on.
And yet the polls are going to be close.
Biden's actually leading in some polls.
How in the world can we explain this polling?
It looks like the polling is completely fake.
At least some of it.
I mean, I assume that the top number is the fake.
If the bottom number shows that Trump is leading on everything that matters, how in the world could he be leading in the polling?
Because you would think that if the same people who are just pro-Biden, they knew they were doing a poll that involved Trump and Biden, wouldn't they also say that Biden was winning on the individual categories?
Wouldn't they?
If you're in the bag for Biden and you just want to say Trump bad, Biden good, you would say that Biden was healthier.
You'd say he's better for the economy.
But they're not even willing to do that.
And he's still Thai?
Okay, there's something deeply wrong with what we're saying.
I don't know what it is.
I really don't.
Well, let's check in on the, uh, all the conspiracy theories.
I swear to God, you know, sometimes it's hard to have a conservative sort of Republican audience.
Cause you know, you guys, and I'm talking to all of you, you know, you guys have some wild conspiracy theories.
Am I right?
Like one of them is that the government, especially the Democrats are packed with a bunch of sex offenders that haven't been caught yet.
It's like some big, you know, pedophile conspiracy theory.
Like, you guys will believe anything.
You're believing that the top people in the Democrat Party are all a bunch of pedos.
Crazy.
Well, next story is that President Obama's former senior policy advisor, Rahim Shah, has been charged with child... Oh, okay.
Okay, well, maybe you're right sometimes.
Okay, I'm gonna give you this one.
All right, I'll give you this.
Turns out it's a whole party full of exactly what you thought.
So yeah, Colin Rugg was reporting this on X. So this senior policy advisor is being charged with sex offenses.
Let's just say he had some bad stuff on his computer.
Some bad stuff.
And he worked on the US strategy to combat terrorism and terrorists.
And so while he was helping us fight Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, the children were fighting him off or something like that.
I guess there were some kind of allegations.
They're allegations, people.
He's innocent until proven guilty.
So take your conspiracy theories Even though they look suspiciously supportable.
Anyway, he wasn't in charge of ordering the pizza and hot dogs for Obama, but you know where that story's going.
Well, thankfully, the Democrats are trying to get those corrupt Republicans out of office by having a sweep and winning everything in 2024.
And, uh, oh, here's a story about Ted Lieu.
He is accused of using donors money to give $50,000 donation to Stanford, who then soon after admitted his child into Stanford.
So that's probably a coincidence.
Am I right?
And, uh, I'll tell you when I give money to a politician, what I'm really hoping the politician spends it on, Is bribing a college to get his kid into it.
Now, there's no evidence that's what happened.
That's simply an allegation.
And we have a correlation but not a causation.
It could be that he loves Stanford so much that he wanted to give them money and he had this donor money so he gave him that.
It had nothing to do with the admission of his child.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Right?
Sometimes it's hard to say this until proven guilty, but let's try to keep that standard.
Well, if you're watching the protester situation at Columbia University, I'm not sure I'd call it protesting so much as anti-Semitism, and it's become super dangerous and scary if you're a Jewish student, or even if you're Jewish and anywhere near that situation.
But apparently they built a tent city in the middle of the campus.
An orthodox rabbi, who I guess is associated with Columbia and Barnard, he sent out a WhatsApp message to 290 Jewish students and he said, you know, maybe they should go home until it's safe to go to college.
He actually said, you should consider going home and just dropping out of college until it's safe and then come back.
Now that's not a very practical suggestion for most people.
You can't really easily drop out of college if that's your whole plan.
But that's how bad it is.
Now, you might say to yourself, Scott, this is terrible.
It's so terrible because not only have the The protesters create a highly anti-Semitic situation, and it's scary, and there have actually been physical attacks on Jewish students, etc.
I think somebody at Yale got stabbed at a protest.
So it's getting really dicey and dicey, but as bad as it is now, I don't think you should be super worried yet.
I wouldn't worry until the Columbia tent people start digging tunnels.
If you hear that the Columbia protesters have started to build tunnels, then that's the next level of worrying.
I would take your concern up to another level.
Right now, I would put it at the level of seriously, seriously concerning and must be fixed immediately.
But I think if they start building tunnels under the tents, I'd take that up another level.
At least one more DEFCON.
So, that's my standard.
Once they got tunnels, then you gotta worry.
Anyway, but I think that if they do build tunnels, I think there's a theoretical number of migrants who could be urinating outdoors that would flood the tunnels.
Anyway, let's not solve it yet.
Let's wait till it's a problem.
Well, let's see.
The Democrats have a new campaign ad showing a young woman who's trying to go to another state to get an abortion because Alabama law would prohibit it.
And the theatrical approach that the advertising campaign is taking is that you see the pregnant woman being stopped by the Alabama police and saying, you can't cross state lines to get an abortion.
And she's like frisked and arrested.
Now, apparently, there's not yet a law, but there are allegedly.
Can you give me a fact check on this?
Allegedly?
That Alabama is looking at making it illegal to go to another state to get an abortion where it is legal?
Is that actually something that Republicans are dumb enough to do?
Is that actually being discussed?
Because I have trouble believing that.
That sounds like just something they made up, right?
Now, I wouldn't be surprised if there are some people who have suggested it.
Because there's always some people who suggest everything.
But I can't imagine there's any serious effort in Alabama to stop somebody from driving across the state line.
Is there?
Can anybody give me a fact check on that?
Is there?
Because I'd ask some serious questions if that's the case.
You know, regardless of what you think about abortion, your state can't stop you from driving to another state and doing what's legal in that state.
There's no way that that's going to be a law, is it?
I don't know.
We've seen some crazy things, but I can't imagine that would become a law.
Meanwhile, at Steve Bannon's War Room, there's some new information.
From Kurt Olson, he's an attorney, and I guess he's got some new information.
You've probably heard this before, but what's new is that they're using the updated information about the Dominion machines, their claims about them, allegations, I'll call them, that they found some, let's say, data security issues.
I'll tell you what they are in a moment.
And that they're updating some Supreme Court filings.
So there's some kind of Supreme Court case that Um, is being pushed forward.
Doesn't mean the Supreme Court will take it.
It's just an application of some sort for them to take it.
But of course they don't take most things.
So we'll see.
But here are the claims.
So Kurt Olson says his security experts have found the following that in the 2020 and 2022 elections, Um, that Dominion used altered software and lied about it.
That's the allegation.
Meaning that, um, they said they were using one version of software, but the actual election was run on a different version.
Now, is that a problem?
That's like a really big problem.
That's as big as you can get.
If the system was checked out for security with one version of software and then ran a different version, That's the same as not checking it for security.
I mean, or at least it leaves a big hole.
But that's not the only thing.
Also in those last two elections, they said they performed pre-election tests on the machines, which would sound like they tested all the machines before the election.
That's how I'd interpret that.
But the claim is that they didn't.
They didn't test the machines.
They only tested some spares.
In other words, they only tested machines that were not used in the election.
And said they tested the machines used in the election by testing machines that were not used in the election.
Is that a problem?
Yeah, could be.
Kind of sketchy.
But then the third one is the funniest one.
That the claim is that the master encryption key was left open in plain text Anyone who knew where to look could find out how to have God control over the entire election simply by knowing where to look.
They wouldn't have to hack anything.
They just have to know where to look.
And it was so, so unsecure, the claim is, that you could have changed anything happening in the system without detection.
Now do you believe that?
Now I'm going to say that there's some pushback on the claim that you could do massive election machine cheating and not get caught.
Because there are some controls, right?
There are some audits, there are some checks.
So it does seem to me that some types of misbehavior would get caught.
But does that mean that every kind of cheating can get caught?
Because if you could check the counting machines as well as the voting machines, and I think it was all part of one network, so you had control of more than one kind of machine, the vote and also the count of the vote.
Do you think that the allegation will stand that you could change something in the voting machines that wouldn't be detected?
So the wouldn't be detected part is the part I think would be the hardest to prove.
Because I would imagine that Dominion will have some kind of argument that sounds like, well, yeah, you could make those changes, but we would obviously catch them.
So we'll see if that's a good argument.
But I think that would be the argument.
But what else would it be?
If it were you, you would argue, yeah, we would catch that.
And here's how we would catch it.
So I don't know if this is enough to get it into the Supreme Court.
However, anybody who's making a claim that the election systems are secure is going to have to deal with the fact that they found three potential problems that don't mean they were exploited.
So remember, separate the two topics.
One topic is, you know, did anybody do anything bad on the election?
And the other topic is, could they?
Was it possible, but maybe they just didn't do it.
And I think the question, was it possible, is looking more credible than it has before.
But remember, all these election claims, they almost all turn out not to be true.
So if we were to look at it from the 30,000 foot level, and I said, hey, there's another claim about the election, you should bet against it.
Do you agree?
If I said there's another claim, but I didn't give you any details about the elections, what would you bet?
Well, the smart bet, you know, is 20 to 1 in favor of it not being, you know, not being conclusive.
So we'll see.
These are pretty big, pretty big claims.
But then Steve Bannon asked the question, would Murdoch have won that gigantic Fox News case In which Tucker was saying things about the security of the election systems.
Would Murdoch have won that case if he had had these three pieces of information?
And he could have said in that trial, well, we don't know what happened, but here's your security key right here.
Imagine if during the trial where Fox News, you know, was under fire for saying the election machines were not secure.
Imagine if the defense, Uh, had pulled out a document, and they said, you know your encryption security key?
Here it is.
And then just walk, walk in front of the jury, you know, not that they could care or read the digits, but just say, look, here's the encryption key.
Do you, do you know who had access to this?
Everybody who knew where to look.
Wouldn't that be the end of the case?
Like how could you sit in the jury and let's say that that evidence held up against cross-examination and everything.
If that held up, then it really was there.
And if you knew where to look, you could find it.
Now here's the part I don't know.
How many people had access to that?
Because you still have to have access to the system before you could find something on the system.
So at the very least, it would mean that any of the texts using the system could have thwarted it.
So an inside job would still be possible, but probably has to be an inside job.
Unless the hackers can get in.
Then maybe they can.
So keep an eye on that.
If you had applied the Dilber filter to the election, what would it have predicted?
Now the Dilber filter says that all big organizations operate super inefficiently and selfishly and stupidly and everything's a lie.
That's the Dilbert filter.
We were told that, um, this massive enterprise of, you know, machines and technology and how it's all tied together in this complex system was flawless.
If you've ever had any experience at a big company or any big organization, there's no big organization that could pull this off flawlessly.
The, the number of, uh, You know, alleged problems with the system are exactly what I would have predicted.
And I think I did.
Maybe not in the right words.
But if you had any experience in a Dilbert-like world, and this is a whole bunch of Dilbert worlds, you know, every election precinct is a little Dilbert world.
People don't have the ability to do this flawlessly.
That's not something humans can do.
Humans cannot pull off this level of complexity and organization without a lot of problems.
So as soon as you were told that we don't have any problems, every antenna should have gone up.
Wait a minute, you're in exactly a situation where a hundred percent of the time there are problems, and big ones, but this is the only time that's not the case?
Would you have believed it?
No, the Dilber filter is very predictive.
If it's a big organization, people are cheating and lying and bullshitting.
Every time.
Not sometimes.
Not most of the time.
Every time.
It's just a, that's something to do with scale.
If you get enough people in one place doing, you know, some kind of common thing, a lot of them are going to be bad people.
You can't avoid it.
All right, let's, uh, Let's take that and apply that to, let's say, climate change.
Have you noticed that checking the temperature, the thermometers around the country, remind you of checking voting machines?
Let's say, in both cases, it's a very large enterprise, with very complicated, lots of moving parts, lots of human beings involved, a lack of transparency, very high stakes, People have a lot of money involved.
How often is that going to be corrupt?
If you use the Dilber filter, the Dilber filter would say that climate change would be corrupt 100% of the time.
And that the reading of the thermometers isn't much different from the making sure your election, your counting machines and your voting machines are all accurate and there's no security problems.
And that all the people working on them did the right thing to keep them secure.
Because remember, The security of Dominion's machines, I think this is fair to say, is not about their design.
Because nobody said yet, I haven't seen anybody say this, that they're designed poorly.
It appears that the humans are the problem.
If somebody left an unencrypted, you know, basically a password to the whole machine to give you God capability, that feels more like a human problem.
Like, somebody should have known not to do that.
It doesn't exactly sound like a technology problem.
I mean, it looks like it was done intentionally.
But, you know, in the real world, incompetence explains almost everything.
So, we can't tell in this case.
So, I would say, I would take the Dilbert filter to the climate thermometer measuring world, and I'd say, there's not really any chance that humans can do that as accurately as the experts tell us.
So I have the same opinion on the voting machines as I do on climate change, that when you've got that level of complexity and money's involved and all that, that's not something people can do to a level of perfection that you would want.
Now let's talk about evolution.
I love that evolution is in the headlines again.
It's just the ultimate provocative thing.
So Tucker Carlson was on Joe Rogan the other day.
And Tucker said that he doesn't believe in evolution.
He does believe, you know, in species changing over time in the sense that, you know, you could breed a dog to be taller or bigger and, you know, maybe finches can have bigger or smaller beaks or change their colors.
But according to Tucker, and this is not my view, this is Tucker, human evolution has never been demonstrated by the fossil record.
Would you agree with that statement?
Science does not agree with that statement.
But do you agree with it?
That the fossil record does not prove human evolution.
And that, in fact, the record doesn't show anything else evolving either.
It can show you a fossil of one thing, and it can show you a fossil of another thing.
But you can't really tell that the one thing turned into the other thing.
Because the fossil record is not that accurate.
Now, I'm going to argue both sides, so I want to steel man this as much as possible so it doesn't just sound absurd.
The so-called theory of evolution has a ton of evidence in favor of it.
A ton of evidence.
I mean, almost as much as climate change.
Almost as much evidence as the fact that our elections are all secure, and no problem at all.
Those are three things that have a ton of evidence.
The first two are ridiculously false.
And when I say false, I'm not making an allegation of my own about the voting machines, so I can stay out of legal trouble.
I'm saying I don't see any situation in which this level of complexity is going to lead to humans getting it flawlessly right.
Evolution is pretty complicated too.
A lot of moving parts and a lot of money involved.
But what are the odds that we got this one right?
Here's a little mind bender for you.
When you were in school, did you learn that evolution was the survival of the fittest?
How many of you learned that that's what evolution was?
Survival of the fittest?
Do you know they changed that, right?
Because they found out that wasn't the case?
It's the single most important element of evolution, as we understood it.
That you had to have some adaptive benefit in order for that to continue.
If it wasn't a benefit, then it wouldn't continue.
But the modern version of evolution is that things just happen.
It's not always a benefit.
So, for example, if you were a bird evolving on an island with no predators, well, then you could evolve for a thousand years having messed up birds that can't fly very well.
No predators.
If the predators were there and they couldn't fly, they would all get eaten.
But if there's no predators, they can just willy-nilly evolve randomly into whatever the hell they want to.
So the modern version of evolution pretty much completely rejects the original version of evolution that I was told was rock-solid.
I was told evolution was just a fact in school.
But now I'm told that the most basic element of how it worked, now it's nothing like that.
It's really just the evolution of what happened, not the fittest.
Now, but what about that fossil record?
Would you say the entire evolution depends on just the fossil record?
No, it does not.
Because there's other evidence.
For example, You know, viruses, although they're not alive, so that shouldn't count.
I think bacteria, some other stuff.
So in a lab, you can force things to evolve, but I'm not sure you can turn a bacteria into a germ.
I don't know what I'm talking about, but I think a bacteria is different than a germ.
I'm pretty sure.
So is there anything happening in the lab?
I just don't know, actually.
Is there anything happening in the lab that is definitely evolution?
Or is the lab just more proof that you can breed a big dog into a little dog if you try?
I don't know.
But here's where it gets interesting.
Elon Musk replied to this conversation with a sigh.
The sigh seemed to indicate that watching Tucker doubt evolution was sort of anti-science.
But how do you believe in evolution if you also believe in the simulation?
Now you could say that the simulation just includes evolution.
And so it all happened, it's all simulated, but it all happened within the simulation just like everything else.
Maybe.
But if we're a simulation, it suggests there's probably a resource limit.
Because everything seems to have a resource limit.
Now, not necessarily.
Could be some future, you know, unlimited technology species.
But far more likely, it would be a species like us, in some ways, that is limited in resources.
If it's limited in resources, it's not going to build the whole universe in the simulation.
That would be crazy.
It's going to build the stuff you can see, And then as you need to see other stuff, let's say we, you know, we can go to see the backside of the moon for the first time.
That's when it becomes real.
It fills it in when you can see it.
Now we do see in science that our observation does seem to change reality.
So that's not crazy.
So I would say that if you believe the simulation is a billion to one more likely than not being a simulation, it's a little sketchy to say that evolution is true.
Because in my view, simulation doesn't require, but very likely, the past is created by the present.
So if you saw any evidence of that, like the double-slit experiment, in my view, that's my own interpretation, that is the present creating the past.
Because when you look at it, it's only when you look at it that it's different in the past.
Does that make sense?
The first time you look at the results for the double slit experiment, without getting into details about it, when you look at it, that's the first time you know that there was an interference, and again, without the details, you know there was an interference pattern.
But the interference pattern had to have existed before you looked at it, because otherwise it wouldn't be there.
So, by looking at it, you've actually created the past, for the first time.
Now, if you measured it, without looking at it, it also solidifies it into that interference pattern.
But the measurement is just another way of, you know, solidifying reality.
It doesn't need to be a human, it could be a measurement.
But in both cases, the present created the past.
Now, I know some of you are going to say, You are misinterpreting that experiment.
To which I say, hey, whatever your name is, no, you're misinterpreting it, and so are all the scientists.
Do you know why they're misinterpreting it?
Because they can't handle the fact that the arrow of time is not what they think it is.
So they start with the assumption that you can't be changed in the past.
Whereas I start with the assumption that change in the past is probably the way it works.
It's the most likely way it works.
So if you enter the double slit experiment, assuming the most likely way the world works is that your observations change the past, well, there it is.
It's right in front of you.
If you think that's not possible, then you would interpret it a different way, I suppose.
Anyway, I saw Cerno saying, Mike Cernovich, the theory he posted today, the theory of evolution, people can't even figure out He goes, the theory of evolution, people can't even figure out where COVID originated, LMAO.
So is that fair?
Now that's a, that's the Dilber principle.
He's basically stating it in a more, you know, commonsensical headline way.
But the reason we can't figure out where COVID originated from might be capability.
But it might be more to do with the people that everybody lies.
So the world is full of liars lying for lots of different reasons.
So if you look at anything that's happening during our time, you can see it's mostly a bunch of lying.
But then you look at evolution and you're like, oh, I'm glad we totally nailed that.
Yeah.
Yeah.
The elections we have doubts about.
We've got, we've got doubts about those thermometers, but oh, the evolution's good.
We nailed the evolution.
I saw Colin Wright on X say, here's his view, he says, the Wright can't convincingly accuse the woke left of, quote, denying biology, you know, the whole trans thing, regarding biological sex, if they themselves reject evolution.
Hmm.
Does that make sense to you?
Does it make sense that you can't doubt one part of science if you're doubting a different part of science?
How does that make sense?
Isn't doubting science built into science?
And can't I say most of it looks good, but I doubt this part?
I thought that's the whole point.
I thought that's exactly what I can do.
I can say you got gravity right, but I'm not so sure about climate change.
There's no such thing as trusting science.
If you're trusting science, you're doing it wrong.
Science says, don't trust me.
Right?
Science says, hey people, don't trust me.
That's his main message.
That's the number one thing it says.
Don't trust me.
You better test this a lot.
All right.
So here's why, uh, yeah.
And then Tucker says that God built it, and I say that any filter that works, keep doing it.
If having a God filter on things lets you organize your life in a productive way and raise your kids to be good citizens and all that, and it does appear to do that, I'd say, sure, do some of that.
But if it doesn't stop you from doing science, that's the important part.
I mean, you can't, you can't ignore all of science because you disagree with one part of it.
All right, here's some more science.
Mario Noeffel is reporting that there's a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
So it's in their annals.
So in their annals, They studied fasting and they say it doesn't work for losing weight.
This is an ARST test, technical.
Doesn't work for losing weight.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that fasting doesn't work for losing weight?
That as long as you eat the same amount of food, over time you don't lose weight.
How is that?
Why do you even have to study that?
Who didn't understand that if you ate the same amount of food in the same time frame, you would weigh the same no matter when you ate it?
Did we really need to study that?
Now, don't... When you say fasting works, let's be specific.
Fasting has benefits that are claimed, that are good for your body and your mental health, right?
But not necessarily weight loss.
If you're fasting for weight loss, then all you're doing is eating less, if you're doing it right.
So if what you did is fast for a day, and then the next day you ate the normal amount for that day, of course you'd lose weight!
Because you would have an entire day with no calories.
So apparently what they tested was, if you fast for a day, and then eat twice as much the next day, you won't lose weight.
Did they really need to study that?
Did anybody?
Was that a surprise to somebody?
I don't know.
Looks like bad science to me.
Well, End Wokeness is reporting that the L.A.
mayor, Karen Bass, her house was burglarized.
Now, I know what you're going to say.
That's an old story, Scott.
We already know that Karen Bass, the mayor of Los Angeles, who was sort of a soft on crime person, we already know that her house was burglarized.
And so why are you bringing it up again?
Because it was burglarized a second time.
Yep, the soft on crime mayor just got burglarized a second time.
So, here's my unpopular take on that.
If DEI never existed, I would look at her and say, hmm, looks like she had some bad policies, or maybe she'll correct it.
In the context of DEI, when I see a black mayor who's clearly not getting the job done, I say to myself, huh, looks like a DEI problem.
Like the base problem is DEI.
And the reason I say that is I think a better leader could fix it.
You know, being tougher on crime, for example.
So, is it my fault that I live in a world where I'm continuously reminded of DEI, And then I see somebody who is black and is in charge and is failing.
What am I supposed to think?
If the society primes me to say DEI, DEI is why we're looking for people and hiring people and voting for people, of course I'm going to think that the problem is DEI.
Now that's different from saying there's a problem with the person.
So you have to separate that.
One is a system, and the other is an individual.
So I'm not making a claim about the individual, and indeed, if it turns out she's really good at her job, it's hard to tell from the outside, but if it turns out she's really good at her job, and maybe even made one slip that maybe she'll fix.
Pretty big one, but if she fixed it, I would give her credit.
So, I don't know that there's something wrong with the individual.
But I do know that in the context of DEI, they've created a situation where it's my first assumption.
It's my working assumption.
Now, do you think that's good for black people?
That when I see a black leader who's not getting it done, that I think it's because of DEI?
Not because necessarily there's something wrong with the person.
That's a whole different conversation.
You know, the person might actually be qualified.
And it would be terribly, terribly unfair to a qualified black leader to be painted with the same brush just because it's in the context of DEI.
I don't see how black people come out ahead with DEI.
To me, it looks like a complete losing proposition.
And I think what's wrong about it is what Democrats get wrong every time.
They don't take into account the room.
You gotta read the room.
Right?
Read the room.
That's what Trump did correctly on abortion, I think.
You know, even if you don't like where he landed, he read the room right.
He read the room right.
Just exactly right.
Right?
There's no right answer, but he found the safest place to be on it for a president.
That's reading the room right.
And DEI is reading the room so wrong, It's almost like ignoring that it matters what other people think of DEI.
No, it's actually the most important thing.
The most important thing is how white people think about it.
But we're going to be really quiet in the short run.
In the long run, we're going to form opinions that it's promoting unqualified people.
There's nothing you can do about that.
We're not broken.
There's nothing to fix.
You designed a system that guarantees that People are going to assume DEI hires are less qualified.
And the math suggests that it will often be true, but not always, of course.
So how is that a good situation for being black in America?
To me, this would be just the worst freaking thing.
If you're capable, you're going to be operating under this umbrella of assumption of incapability.
And I can't imagine anything that would be more Just destructive to your entire ability to enjoy your life.
Anyway, get out of L.A.
L.A.' 's fallen.
There's a campaign video, I guess you'd call it that, that is the strongest one I think maybe I've ever seen.
Now think about what big a statement that is.
It's a campaign ad, just a two-minute ad, might be the strongest one I've ever seen for any side at any time.
Anywhere.
It was made by Western lensman and Blake Habion.
So I've posted it.
If you want to go see it, I'm not going to give it to you, but I'll just tell you how it felt.
It promises at the beginning to tell you 25 ways that Biden is destroying America or the Democrats, I guess.
And it's going to do it in two minutes.
Now, when I heard that, I'm like, really?
25 ways.
You're going to give me 25 ways in two minutes, and I'm supposed to think that these are all credible?
So here's what I assumed.
The first five, probably are going to be pretty good.
Like, things I might agree with, like, oh, open border.
Yeah, that is destroying the country.
And then I thought, by the time you get to 25, you're going to be into the weak stuff, right?
Just makes sense, right?
You're gonna put the strong stuff up front, and then I'm gonna say, wow, yeah, yeah, yeah.
And then once you got me nodding along, by the time you get to eight or nine on the list of 25, you've just hypnotized me.
Like, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Oh, that's right.
Oh, yeah, yeah.
And then you get to the 25, and they might be weak, but you're all on board at that point.
Didn't go like that.
All 25 are strong.
And when you see them together, it's like your hair catches on fire.
Because when you see them together, it does look like the Democrats are legitimately trying to destroy the country.
And you don't see it if you see any one of the 25 things individually, because they all have a reason.
Well, we're working on this, and there's a reason for that, and well, you didn't look at the trade-off, and well, it's not a perfect world.
Everything's got its own little excuse.
But boy, when you see all 25 of them together, it looks like Democrats are literally, intentionally trying to destroy the country.
And I think there's something to that.
Because when you hate something, you will even subconsciously do everything you can to destroy it.
Right?
It doesn't even mean it's a plan.
I wouldn't claim it's a plan.
I don't think there's a meeting where somebody said, hey, let's destroy the country in a variety of ways.
I think what it is, is a lot of young people especially, maybe seeing that the elites stole everything that's worth stealing and left them nothing but crumbs.
Now, if I were Twenty years old, and I thought the elites in both parties had stolen everything good and polluted the world and left it an ashen, crumbly mess with nothing but debt and war.
I would want to destroy that system.
And it wouldn't matter what happened.
I'd be like, okay, anything.
You want to turn the boys into girls?
Yeah, go ahead.
I'm down with that.
What could go wrong?
I do want to, um, you know, you should take the time to look at it.
It's on my ex feed.
I posted it today.
So strong.
So congratulations to Blake Habian and whatever Western Lensman did.
I'm not sure who did what.
I think Blake might've produced it.
Uh, actually I'm not sure, but the, but they worked together on it in some way.
Um, but it's amazing.
It's probably the most persuasive thing I've seen in a campaign ad.
New York Times has a guest opinion today, and the title of the guest opinion is, Government Surveillance Keeps Us Safe.
So... So...
Is that scary?
To see that the paper of record is running an opinion piece that says government surveillance of all the citizens can keep you safe?
You know, everybody always says, oh, this is so 1984.
This is the most 1984 thing I've ever seen.
It'll be hard to top this one.
That's a topper.
But the thing is, I actually agree with it.
It does keep you safe.
It just takes your freedom away.
That's always the trade-off.
Yeah, the government can do lots of things to keep you safe.
Lock you into your house.
But in the long run, maybe you're not too happy about it.
I think this government surveillance probably goes a long way to explaining why we haven't had worse terror attacks since 9-11.
I feel like the fact that we have no privacy Is the only reason there haven't been major terror attacks.
I think that a lot of stuff must be getting thwarted in its infancy because they have complete ability to monitor just literally everything.
So that's the most positive thing you can put on it.
But no, I'm not in favor of the government surveilling every single thing we do, but I think it's a fact and it's not going to change.
There's a business called Sheetz.
I don't know what they do.
S-H-E-E-T-Z.
And they're being sued by the government, Biden administration, for discriminating against minorities.
And specifically their form of discrimination is They require applicants to pass a criminal record background check.
So Sheetz doesn't want to hire people who have criminal records, but since there are more people with criminal records in the underserved communities, that would be now illegal, according to the Biden administration.
So the Biden administration wants to force this company to hire convicted felons.
So, but you know it's ridiculous.
You know what's ridiculous?
I mean, really.
Do you really think there are 25 different ways that the Biden administration is trying to literally destroy the country?
Maybe 26.
Maybe 26.
Because it clearly is bad for the country.
It couldn't be any worse for the country.
And here it is.
And they're going to spend a lot of resources on this.
Of all the things that the Biden administration could do to root out unfairness and discrimination, they had to find this one.
Now, doesn't that mean that everything else that's more important than this has been solved?
Do they have so much resource So many resources that they could solve all the big discrimination problems.
They're all well handled.
But now they're working down the list and priorities and we're all the way down to the company that doesn't want to hire criminals.
They should hire more criminals.
Or they'll go to jail or something.
Fine, probably.
So I now if you add this to the fact that the white supremacists that they were looking for in the military didn't exist.
I think things are really going well if you've got DEI hires in all the major cities, and the worst remaining discrimination you could find is that they don't want to hire criminals.
Amazing.
Well, let's talk about Ukraine.
I saw a post by Joey Manorino, and he says this in his post.
He said he had dinner with a friend from Ukraine, and he learned something the media is not reporting.
If you're a male citizen of Ukraine who lives outside the country and your passport expires, you no longer can renew it at an embassy.
So if you're an Ukrainian man at another country, mostly maybe to get away from Ukraine, if your passport expires, they won't renew it.
You have to come back to Ukraine and die in the meat grinder.
Wow.
So if you don't have a passport, you can't stay in the country you're in, but you also can't go back to the country.
Some country should say you could come here.
Because I'm pretty sure that the Ukrainians, the Ukrainian men who are living, you know, escaped Ukraine to get away from the draft, they're probably educated and employable.
They'd probably be a pretty good group, you know, cause they're, they're not filtered for being criminals or anything.
They're filtered for being smart enough not to be part of a war.
And they had enough resources that they could get out of the country.
That probably suggests it would be a great group of people to have in your country.
So, you know, maybe somebody will open their doors and make that more legal.
Um, but, Some other things we're learning.
This is from Brian Dean Wright.
I believe he used to be in the intelligence services, but now is not.
And he's talking about how the war is lost, basically, the Ukraine war.
He says there are two problems.
One is massive corruption that we know about.
So it's going to be hard to keep shoveling the money when we know Zelensky is stealing it and his lieutenants are.
And apparently that's documented now.
So we don't wonder if Zelensky is stealing the money.
Yeah, he is.
And I guess everybody knows it.
But the other thing is that there are no human beings left in Ukraine to fight.
That the urban men disappeared, because they could, and the rural men are all dead.
So they just ran out of people.
So according to Brian Dean Wright, the weapons aren't going to help as much as you want, because they don't have anybody to fire them.
Now, that wouldn't be so bad.
I mean, it's terrible.
But it wouldn't be so bad if it looked like they could win.
Right?
You'd say to yourself, well, that's the most horrible thing.
They lost all their men for a generation.
But if they won, you know, you can imagine that eventually they'd spin it into a great sacrifice and a victory.
But they're not winning.
And indeed, the whole goal that the Biden administration has said out loud, that it's just a cheap way to degrade the Russian military, which I don't think most people care about, but maybe some do.
But how's that working out?
Politico reports that the Russian army is larger by 15% than it was when it invaded Ukraine.
And their industrial production is growing.
Their military is getting stronger and apparently there's no risk to the economy.
So basically we made Russia stronger.
Although I don't know that you can really tell that.
I'm not sure we know exactly what's happening in Russia.
You know, that's probably propaganda too.
So I don't know how much Russia is winning, but it doesn't look like they're losing.
You know, you can't believe anything from a war zone or from Russia or Ukraine.
But anyway, David Sacks is on this case, making it clear, and I think he's correct, he's making it clear that there is no win to be had, and that we lost the only thing we said we were trying to do, which is degrade Russia, etc.
And I think I have been won over to the side that the whole point of making Ukraine NATO, so Ukraine would have to buy weapons from American manufacturers.
And that Americans would pay with our taxes to give to Ukraine so they could buy our weapons.
So basically it's just our own military industrial complex looting our pockets.
And they're energy people trying to take Russia's energy and that sort of thing.
So I see America as more of a criminal enterprise than a military keeping the world safe for democracy.
That's my take.
Because Ukraine looks entirely like a criminal enterprise backed by an army.
Because the stated claims are somewhat ludicrous, whereas the more obvious explanation of what's going on, you know, CIA wants to protect their labs and, you know, we want to have closer assets to threaten Russia, and maybe we did want to degrade their military a little or, you know, get Putin out of office, all that stuff.
But, mostly it looks like it's just a money-grab, corrupt, criminal enterprise.
And we're just knee-deep in it.
So, I'm rejecting any notion that America's a good guy in this situation.
I think we're the criminals in this situation.
That would be my take.
Now, what is the solution for all of it?
Well, Trump has to avoid the obvious plot to assassinate him.
I think we could say that out loud, right?
I mean, if they're trying to remove his Secret Service protection while painting him as a risk to democracy and a Hitler character, that's a murder attempt.
Now, the fact that they figured out a legal way to murder somebody, or attempted to murder him, that doesn't change the fact that what it is, it might be illegal, but it's still murder.
So I would say our system is mostly blackmail, bribery, corruption, and murder, and that the thin veneer of a republic and a democracy and all that stuff is largely silly and absurd and clearly hasn't been with us for decades.
We're complicit unless we overthrow the corruption.
Well, unless it's working.
See, that's the problem.
It always comes down to what are the alternatives?
And I've said it before but I'm going to double down on it.
If it's true that we're not, you know, a democratic republic, that doesn't mean we're worse off.
It just means we're not what we thought we were.
It definitely means some people are being screwed.
Definitely means that.
Definitely means the elites are getting richer.
But here's the problem.
That's every system.
If you show me a system where the elites don't not only stay elite, but they don't, you know, gain compared to the population and rob them, I've never seen that system.
What system is that?
So if every system robs the public for the benefit of the elite, and if it doesn't, it doesn't have the resources to field an army and protect itself, it won't last.
So, my take is, the bigger and badder we are as a criminal enterprise, the longer we're going to last.
Why do you think Russia is still in business and going to survive this war?
Is it because they're a democratic republic?
No, it's because they're a massive criminal enterprise with a military, just like us.
Look at China.
Do you think the elites are doing better than the people?
I think so.
I think so.
Yeah, I think they're doing great.
And does that mean that in a way, conceptually, they're robbing the people to keep themselves in power?
And yeah, of course, that's what it means.
That's exactly what it means.
So every system that is successful, successful to the point where, you know, we think they should be in NATO, let's say, let's say that's the minimum level of a successful country is that we want them in NATO.
You don't get there without your elites being totally in charge and being able to control the government and the military.
So I think that all of the countries that are successful are criminal enterprises.
Because in the long run, that's the model that works.
And like the mafia, the mafia might not want a lot of crime on its own street.
Because it doesn't want to interfere with the bigger crimes it's doing.
So it could be.
That our criminal government would do quite a good job of, you know, reducing crime, if the right members of it were in charge.
NATO is a cartel?
Yeah, in a sense.
Yeah, I mean, doesn't that word fit perfectly?
Because cartels don't have to be illegal, do they?
Well, I don't know, maybe they do.
I'm not sure if that's baked into the definition of a cartel.
Doesn't a cartel just mean a bunch of people With power who are operating together in some way.
All right, we're going to do a closing sip because I think you need it.
Here's to you.
Now do you think Trump could fix all of these problems I just mentioned?
I How many of this criminal enterprise stuff could Trump fix?
Almost none.
If he can fix any of this stuff, he would have done some of it in the first term.
So it looks like whatever it is is stronger than all the presidents.
You know, I don't think there's any president that can fix it.
So here's what might happen.
I think the people, the elites, as we say, the people in charge, I think if Trump gets elected by a big enough margin they can't cheat him out of office and they can't put him in jail because there are too many people who would go nuts, I think they'll just try to wait him out.
They'll do everything they can to destroy him while he's in office, but ultimately they don't want to reveal too much about themselves if they can just wait four years and go back to running everything.
So I feel like they'll just wait him out.
So there's one possibility that it won't be riots in the streets.
They might just say, let's just keep this on a slow boil, get through the four years, get back in power, start another war, that sort of thing.
Probably the biggest problem would be if Trump doesn't fund another war.
I think if the first thing Trump did is fund a new war, he'd be fine.
He would be perfectly safe.
Because everybody would be like, ah yeah, keep that war guy in there.
War is when your government tells you who the enemy is.
Revolution is when the government's the enemy, yeah.
All right, that's all I got for you today on the platforms of Rumble and YouTube and X. I'm going to talk to the locals people, the subscribers, privately.