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, Bill Barr, Byron York, Tucker Carlson, Anti-White Racism, Fake News Detection Study, TikTok Sale, Scott Galloway, US Budget Cutting, President Trump, UCLA Medical School, Weight Loss Hopelessness, Speaker Johnson Churchill, Thomas Massie, NPR Katherine Maher, Anti-Trump Lawfare, Jack Smith, Presidential Immunity, Anti-Trump WH Coordination, Matthew Colangelo, Hunting Arizona Republicans, Biden Border Crisis, Extinction Budget, Vivek Ramaswamy, Engineered Lifestyle, Loneliness, 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
The picture only has two colors, black and some kind of aqua blue, I think.
But you look at the picture, and clear as day, you can see the color red in a red Coke can.
But if you zoom in on the picture, you see there is no red in the picture whatsoever.
It's one of the best optical illusions.
Oh, I think some people, at least on Locals, you can see it.
It's a real mind-bender, because I don't know if I see the red because my brain knows it's a codecan, and I think that might be why.
If I recognize it as the shape and the title, Maybe it just turns it red in my mind.
Or maybe there's something about those two colors that makes me see red.
I have no idea how that works.
But I'll tell you one thing.
If you have any doubt about your reality being subjectively created by your brain creating a little movie for you, that should end it for you.
Because you can see in real time that you're seeing a reality that isn't real.
That's what's fun about optical illusions.
You can see for yourself that your brain can create a completely artificial reality and you can live inside it just fine.
And the fun thing is that whether that Coke can is red or not red, we both live in the illusion.
And some people don't see it as red, by the way.
So the people who don't see it as red can live and work and reproduce.
And we can live in completely different realities right next to each other.
You see a red can?
I don't.
All right, here's some more news.
I'm going to call this Evergreen News.
Maybe this will be my theme today.
The theme will be, haven't I heard this news before?
Why does all the news feel like I already heard it before, but you're calling it news again?
There's going to be a lot of that today.
Have you ever heard a story that sounds like this?
There's a company that made a big breakthrough in fusion energy.
First time you've ever heard that one?
Has anybody ever heard a story like that?
Big breakthrough in fusion energy.
You can have it any minute now.
You can turn off the heat.
All right, well this one has a little more meat on it than others.
Some Seattle-based company called ZAP and They claim to have made a breakthrough in the economics of it, I guess is the way to say it.
So they figured out a way to do something that normally takes these big expensive superconducting magnets and lasers and they don't need them.
So their technology is orders of magnitude less expensive and quicker to build.
So if that's true, they should be able to iterate rapidly and create the cheapest fusion energy of all time.
Apparently it's a, um, I think Bill Gates may have been one of the funders of this just to make you suspicious.
Yeah.
So I guess he put in some money in this.
So do you think the fusion actually is going to become a thing?
Because it turns out that they can now create the heat they need and they can do it orders of magnitude cheaper than all the ways they've ever done it before.
I feel like they're getting close.
I'll remind you, That several years ago, Sam Altman told me, actually, in person, that he was sure that fusion had already reached the engineering phase, meaning that the basic science supported its feasibility, but you just had to try a bunch of things in an engineering sense until you got it.
And here we are.
It's several years later, but it looks like he was right.
They're just iterating until they get it.
I saw just before I came on that Harvey Weinstein's rape conviction in New York were overturned.
Or a rape conviction.
Now, he's still in trouble in California, right?
So it's not like he's a free person.
But how in the world is Trump being sent to jail and Harvey Weinstein is being freed?
Does any of this seem suspicious to you?
Maybe Harvey Weinstein knows where the bodies are buried.
Maybe he knows where the bodies are buried.
I don't know.
Well, here's some news, again, that you've never heard before.
This will come as quite a shock, but the Pope did an interview, and you're not going to believe this, but he's not in favor of war.
Wow.
Wow, I didn't see that coming.
And he wants, wow, he's even got a plan.
You know, mostly when people say they're not in favor of war, lots of times they don't have a good practical alternative to it.
But the Pope does.
It's called a negotiated peace.
Yeah, so he's against war, and he'd like this thing called a negotiated peace.
Hmm.
I wish somebody had thought of that before.
You know, I'm glad that we check in with the Pope every year or so, because I keep expecting him to change his mind.
And wouldn't it be great one day, it's like, uh, Pope, what do you think of war?
You know, I've been thinking it over for the past year and honestly, I think it's awesome.
I'm all for it.
No, he's not going to say that.
Um, but, uh, he also would, he, he refused to confirm, uh, whether he does or does not shed in the woods.
And I don't think that was a fair question, really.
All right, well, here's another story.
Bill Barr, of all people, ex-Attorney General of Trump, who, of course, Trump and he had some problems toward the end of his term.
And Bill Barr says that he's going to endorse Trump because he doesn't think Biden is the right choice.
So Trump, you know, I have to admit, One of the things I appreciate about Trump is he doesn't hold a grudge.
So he and Bill Barr had some tough times, but Bill Barr came out in public and said he would vote for Trump.
So Trump, in his usual reciprocal way, decided that he would soften on Bill Barr, and he put out a statement about Bill Barr.
Trump said, despite the fact that I called him weak, slow-moving, lethargic, gutless, and lazy, Uh, but, but based on his new endorsements, uh, he says, I greatly appreciate the wholehearted endorsement.
So I am removing the word lethargic from my statement.
Thank you, Bill.
So I used to be weak, slow moving, lethargic, gutless and lazy, but now he's been upgraded to simply a weak, slow moving, gutless and lazy, but not lethargic, not lethargic.
And I feel that that's big of Trump.
But the other question that was not asked, and again, I feel this is a huge gap in our knowledge, does the bar shit in the woods?
Okay.
Now we're going to talk about Hillary Clinton, and I'm also going to ask if she shits in the woods, but Byron York is pointing out that Hillary Clinton said that Trump, Hillary Clinton is so predictable, Trump admires Putin, Because, quote, Putin does what Trump would like to do.
Like what?
Imprison his opposition, said Clinton.
So she thinks Trump is like Putin because Putin would like to imprison his opposition.
Byron York points out that Clinton said this and that Trump did not immediately respond because, of course, he is on trial facing a maximum of 136 years behind bars.
Let me say completely clearly, I would be in favor of Trump rounding up almost all the top Democrats and putting them in jail.
Because it's pretty clear that they are a criminal organization at this point.
I think it's absurd that we're treating the Democrats like a political party.
They are so clearly a criminal organization.
And we'll talk about that in a little while.
Yes, I think Trump should put a whole bunch of people in jail.
For really, really obvious public crimes.
Really, really bad ones.
So yeah, I don't want to make any, no equivocation.
A whole bunch of people, probably a hundred people, need to be in jail at least.
All right, Tucker Carlson's latest video is talking about all the racism against white people.
And he's got an author on that's talking about some new book about that.
He says there's a systematic or systemic racism in the United States against whites.
And Tucker says everyone knows it, but nobody says it.
How come?
Well, I'd like to put forward a hypothesis.
Why nobody says it.
How do you think it works out?
Does it work out really well?
No, nobody says it because other white people will destroy them.
Other white people will destroy them.
The problem is white people, because white people will throw all of their white people under the bus so that they don't get accused of being racist.
White people will kill as many white people as they need to, to save themselves.
So no, white people are a fucking disgrace because no, we're not even allowed to speak because other white people will not let us.
But, uh, I got my freedom of speech, so fuck all of you.
All right, uh, scientists have a, uh, a new holographic display that will be maybe regular eyewear.
Do you know how happy I am that it looks like there's a good chance that everybody will be wearing enhanced reality glasses, but instead of those big weird goggles, the glasses are going to look a lot like the ones that I wear every day.
That's right.
I remember when I was in my twenties and I started to become bald prematurely.
And I was like, Oh, this is the worst thing.
Cause everybody likes hair and I'm getting bald.
And then there were so many boomers that were losing their hair that they would just shave their heads.
And then shaved heads became, you know, not just acceptable, but in some cases, Oh, it looks pretty good with a shaved head.
You know, you got your, uh, you know, Michael Jordan, et cetera.
So a lot of athletes and other people were shaving their heads.
And I thought to myself, well, this is perfect.
Just by pure luck, I was born in the only time in human history when shaving your head or being bald didn't look as bad as it looked, you know, historically.
And then, but I still had to wear glasses.
You know, I went in to get LASIK and they said, Oh, your eyes are not qualified for it for some reason.
So I can't get LASIK.
So I have to wear glasses for the rest of my life while everybody else is not wearing glasses.
Yeah.
I think even contacts don't work for me.
But maybe, maybe the world will come my way and all of you will be wearing glasses.
And then when you see me show up, you're not going to say, Hey, is there some genetic defect with him that he cannot see as well as the rest of us?
No, you're going to say there is a forward thinking, technologically savvy guy who is seeing the world through enhanced vision.
That's what you'll say.
Yes, that's right.
The world is coming my way.
Here's a funny study.
In Sweden, they did a study to see if there was a computer game that they created that would help students detect fake news.
Do you see anything wrong with this study yet?
Before I even tell you anything, do you know what's wrong with that study?
In the comments, just shout it out.
What's wrong with this study?
I haven't even told you anything about it, but it's in Sweden.
It was a computer game.
It helps students better detect fake news.
What's wrong with the study?
Let me tell you what's wrong with the study.
It necessarily requires the people who ran the study to know what fake news looks like.
Now that's funny.
The people running the study want us to believe that they can identify fake news.
You want to bet?
Why don't you send the people who ran this study My hoax list, you know, at least the one for the United States, see how many, if they follow news in the United States, see how many they think are hoaxes.
How about we test those researchers against their own news in Sweden?
I don't know if the news in Sweden is real or not.
But there's no way in the world you could do this test.
There is no way to do the test, because there is no standard by which any of us can determine what is real news.
That's not a thing.
And every time I hear about in the United States, somebody always says, hey, you know, let's train people on fake news, or let's put a list together of all the hoaxes and stuff.
And I always say the same thing.
You can't.
Because since we don't agree what is real and what is not, nobody can put the list together of what's real.
Nobody.
You might be right, but nobody would believe your list.
So it's not a thing.
You can't get there from here.
There is no such thing as somebody telling you what the real news is.
We don't have any ability to know that.
It's unknowable.
You can definitely look for signals of fake news, but I don't know if anybody knows for sure.
Anyway, so, did Biden sign the bill that would divest TikTok?
I think that got signed, right?
It looks like it's going to happen.
But are you surprised that the whole TikTok thing went from nobody seemed to care, Congress just didn't seem to have the energy to pass it, to all of a sudden it's really easily passed?
It just turned on a dime.
It's all because of Israel, right?
I don't think we have to hide the fact that, at least on this topic, Israel is the tail that's wagging the dog.
You know, maybe there's other factors.
For example, I do think that our intelligence people want to get control of TikTok, so they have a backdoor, which they presumably don't have if China controls it.
So some billionaires are looking to maybe buy it, but I assume they've already worked something out with the intelligence people, or they wouldn't be able to do it, or they wouldn't even get serious about it.
And there's a Republican senator, Pete Ricketts, who says TikTok should be banned because the pro-Palestine videos have more views than the top 10 U.S.
news websites combined.
So TikTok, at least for young people, Is an order of magnitude more important than all of the other news?
And since there's some worry that China pushed the heat button on the Palestinian situation, there's no way to know.
The thinking is it's way too dangerous for this TikTok to be hypnotizing everybody.
Now, none of it mattered until it was about Israel.
We all see the same thing, right?
Nobody gave Oh darn, about TikTok.
Until it was about Israel.
And then Israel changed our minds on a dime.
When I say our minds, I mean our Congress.
If you have any question about who's controlling Congress, it's either some combination of Israel plus our intelligence people, but only for the topics that are Israel-specific.
So, I always like to make that distinction.
I think that for every topic, there's some non-government entity or entities that are in charge.
And that the politicians always have to bow to whatever that powerful force is.
If the story is about Israel, then the Israel lobby is the powerful one.
If the story is about some other topic, there's some other group that's more powerful.
You know, if it's climate change or something like that.
So it's not true that the Jews are running the country.
What's more true is that there are certain topics that have certain interest groups that care so much about it.
They put all their energy into it and they can control that.
They can control part of it, but certainly our foreign policy, um, you know, as a foreign influence, I'm not sure that's bad.
It isn't necessarily bad.
It's just the way it is.
Um, So yeah, everything about that TikTok situation is suspicious.
My guess is that when it looked like it was an option to just steal it from China and take it over, that our intel people said, go do it.
And, and Israel was saying, go do it.
So I think between the two of them, you know, if Israel wanted it, and also our intelligence people wanted it, it's going to happen, right?
I feel those two forces would be stronger than any other counterforce.
So I think that's probably why it changed on a dime.
Scott Galloway is sounding the alarm on our low birth rate.
He's got a new book out.
What is it?
Some algebra or something?
Anyway, but one of his points is that young people Are not wanting to reproduce and get married because life looks grim.
Old people like me took all the money and they can't get jobs, can't build houses, can't really get going.
Climate change is going to kill them all, they think.
So we've destroyed the future of the country by making it, you know, worthless to, uh, to even try apparently.
And, um, you know, TikTok may be part of that, who knows?
But our U.S.
birth rate has gone to the lowest level since 1979, failing to exceed replacement rates.
Now, I think we've been below replacement rates for a while, except for immigration.
At the same time, one in four U.S.
adults 50 and older don't think they'll ever be able to retire.
So a quarter of old people don't think they'll ever be able to retire.
And young people don't think that it's worth even trying.
At the same time, I think there were three or four separate headline stories about the greatness of masturbation.
I'm not making that up.
I think the New York Post had a story that it was good for your prostate, and another one that Billie Eilish, famous singer, says she's a great masturbator, she should get a PhD in masturbating, and then Uh, I don't know.
I don't think it's, I don't think it's an accident that masturbation is becoming a gigantic topic at the same time that dating looks ridiculous because, you know, swiping left and right doesn't work for most people anyway.
And, uh, people have become terrible and you can't, can't have babies and it all looks pretty grim, but at least we got robots.
Am I right?
Robot babies.
I think people are going to be raising robot babies.
It does appear that we're gonna give up on each other and find new mechanisms.
All right.
Does that all sound like bad news?
There is only one number I want to know.
To know if we're doomed.
Almost everything else we can figure out.
But there is one number I'm really worried about.
And I've never heard it.
I've never heard anybody even suggest it.
It goes like this.
What percentage would you have to cut government spending, let's say this year and going forward, to have any chance of survival?
Because of our debt.
To have any chance.
Because if the answer is 5%, I'm going to say, oh, well, you know, 5% cuts plus growth in the economy, hmm, you know, a little bit of inflation, maybe we can get through this.
If it's 5%.
If it's 10%, I start thinking, whoa, 10% a year?
That's a deep cut.
But if we've seen in Argentina, maybe it's possible.
Argentina just went into a surplus from a huge deficit.
They just went into a government surplus.
But we don't know if they'll have other problems from not having the government services.
But here's the thing.
What I worry about is that the amount you'd have to cut government just to survive, in just a math sense, that the math doesn't work unless you cut it this much, I'm worried that the number is 75%.
Like, literally.
That we would have to cut spending 75%, like right away, to have any chance of surviving.
Now, if it's 5% or 75%, Normally, I could make a guess about which one of those is closer, but I actually don't know.
Do any of you know?
In a hypothetical sense, if you assume some normal GDP growth, and you assume some normal inflation that we can handle, how much would you have to cut the budget right away, and then each year after that?
If nobody can produce that number, we're probably dead.
If there's no economist who can even take a guess on that number, we're probably dead.
It's because nobody wants to tell you the real number.
And when I say dead, we'd still figure out a way to survive, but we would have a gigantic upheaval, something like a Great Depression kind of upheaval.
We'd probably get through it, but we wouldn't like it.
So here's what I think.
I think that here's how we survive.
You get a President Trump, and he says, here's what you need.
If you live in the traditional built-down places like a built-down city, you really don't have any chance of affording a home if you're young, and there's too much crime and the traffic is bad.
But!
If we build these new cities using modern technology and make it affordable, because we can do that now, we know how to build so that it would be affordable, and so that you could get a job that you could afford a home, and you could raise children, and it could be low crime, and it could be no traffic.
And we could build those, and the building of them would become the GDP.
So you build the new cities that boost your economy, boost your taxes.
But the point of it is that when you go to live there, your cost of living would be so low because you built it correctly.
You designed it to be cost effective.
You have a great quality of life, no roommates, you know, not necessarily roommates, just a great quality of life.
And you'd have a job and everything worked.
So you could create a situation where you built a city We're getting married and having a kid is just a terrific idea and everybody likes it.
And the schools are, you know, not crazy and stuff.
So, you're so brainwashed with the 15-minute cities stuff.
Really?
Let me be as blunt as I can.
If you're worried about the World Economic Forum and your 15-minute cities and they take all your freedom, you're dead.
Cause it's your only hope.
I'm pretty sure.
Let me say this directly as a cat.
If we're not building new cities, we're all fucking dead.
So you need to lose your 15 minutes city fear.
I'm not saying there's no risk.
I'm not saying that it won't be used to grab control or whatever, but if you have a Republican administration, at least there's some chance you can build a city that's not designed as a prison for you, and it might actually give you freedom and stuff.
So you need to get off of this 15-minute city thing, World Economic Forum, whatever that is that's stopping you from wanting to build a new city, you have to lose it.
You're fucking dead if you don't.
Nobody even has an idea how to save a civilization unless we build new affordable cities that solve all the problems that we have with our existing cities.
You're gonna have to release on that.
Now, I get that it's a big risk, but you can design that away.
You've got to release on it.
Otherwise, we're all dead.
We're dead!
If you have another idea, why don't you try it out?
Tell me your idea.
I just told you the only way you can reduce costs enough to live while boosting the economy and surviving.
You tell me your way to do it without building new cities.
I don't know of any way.
So give me your idea.
Don't just tell me why my idea won't work if you do it wrong.
Every idea won't work if you do it wrong.
Oh, I want to build a new car with no wheels.
Well, that's that's not going to work.
No, I don't want to build it with no wheels.
I want to build it with wheels.
I want to build a city where people are free, not where there are more slaves.
Do you think that's possible?
It's possible.
But the alternatives, of course, are that we all die.
So get over that.
Well, in the meantime, Batshit crazy women have done some more to destroy civilization.
I saw a post by Aaron Sibarium saying that UCLA's medical school's mandatory health equity class teaches students that weight loss is a hopeless endeavor.
In quotes.
UCLA's medical school mandatory health equity class teaches students that weight loss is a hopeless endeavor.
And that obesity is a slur used to exact violence on fat people.
Now, I don't need to see a photograph to know that this is not fat men.
Am I right?
This is not fat men behind this.
This is fat, crazy fucking women.
There's no fat man who said, no, that it's hopeless to lose weight.
Zero men were behind this.
I don't need to see any facts.
You don't need to, you don't need to show me the photograph.
No fucking man says this.
This is bad shit, crazy women, and we've got to stop them.
Men, you're going to have to do something to stop the bad shit, crazy women from running everything.
They're ruining everything.
They're ruining everything.
And the problem is we can't talk about it honestly.
Being crazy is a real thing.
It's a medical problem.
We've got to stop treating craziness as a political opinion.
It's not.
It's not a philosophy.
It's just batshit crazy stuff.
All right, Elon Musk.
Says Tesla should be valued as an AI robotics company, not a car company.
Totally agree.
Based on his estimate that they will sell way more robots and AI stuff than they will ever sell in cars.
And I haven't seen the stock yet, but I imagine it's going up.
And I haven't heard yet if Elon's going to leave Tesla because he's not getting his pay package.
When does Musk find out if he gets his pay package reinstated to the $56 billion?
Does he have an answer on that yet or is that some vote that's coming up?
I'll check on that later.
All right, so CNN has a headline that says that That Johnson is like Churchill, so that Mike Johnson is sort of a Churchillian.
That's an actual headline on CNN.
Now, Mike Johnson is a Republican leader, and CNN, which never likes anything Republican, is calling him Churchillian because he passed the Ukrainian budgets and stuff, and basically got both sides to do something hard during a wartime situation.
So he's Churchillian.
Glenn Greenwald comments on that.
He says, Joe Biden and Mike Johnson united to renew warrantless domestic spying, then to spend $100 billion to fuel endless war around the world, all of which Johnson said he opposed.
And then Greenwald says, I don't know what the CIA said or did to Mike Johnson in the skiff, but it really worked.
Here's his reward.
His reward being the headline that he's Churchillian.
Now do you buy that framing from Greenwald?
That it looks like some intelligence people got to him.
Now you probably heard that Thomas Massey said he was in the same skiff looking at the same stuff and didn't see anything that would suggest a change in policy.
So what does that tell you?
It tells you it's not about any of the information.
It tells you it's about people.
There must have been a person who talked to Johnson because according to Thomas Massey, who doesn't seem to be a liar, Thomas Massey seems to be a complete straight shooter as far as I can tell.
He says, I saw the same stuff and I didn't say anything would change my opinion on anything.
But Mike Johnson did.
I don't think it was the data.
I don't think it was the facts.
I think somebody talked to him.
I think it's exactly what it looks like.
And Greenwald seems to be on the same page.
Christopher Ruffo, meanwhile, says that he's getting information from other countries.
Sources are telling him that NPR's CEO, who used to be at Wikimedia, Catherine Mayer, Marr, she was allegedly affiliated with US Intel and had something to do with Some kind of a government overthrow in a foreign country already.
So, I think we can't say that she works for the CIA, but we can say that she has every single flag for being an intelligence asset that you could ever have.
If she's not affiliated with US Intel, it would be shocking, because every signal is flashing in the same direction.
Doesn't mean she is, right?
You know, I don't have, you know, personal knowledge, but from the, you know, news headline level of things that we know, every signal flashing completely intelligence agent, which would, which would tell you that our intelligence people do control the media.
And this is how they do it.
They, they just put their own assets in charge or their own affiliated people in charge.
But at least our Department of Justice is working well without any hiccups.
Let's talk about the Jack Smith lawfare prosecutions trying to put Trump in jail because, you know, because he's on the other team.
So as far as I can tell, There were no crimes committed, but the question is whether Trump should have immunity, presidential immunity, from the no crimes.
So here are the no crimes.
He once used the word find.
When talking about auditing the vote.
So that's the first crime.
He used the word find.
So the people who were idiots and criminals could say, oh, we defined the word find to mean do something illegal.
You know, a whole new use of the word find.
So that's the first thing he did wrong is he used a word that other people said was the wrong word.
So I guess that's illegal.
You go to jail for that.
They say that he knew the election was not rigged, but he acted as if he didn't know, and that that would be bad.
So there's zero evidence that he didn't believe what he said, which is he believed the election was rigged.
No, but there's not a single document There's not an allegation from anybody who was on the inside.
There's not a statement, a phone call, a digital record, an eyewitness to suggest that Trump thought anything but exactly what he said, which is he didn't trust the election outcome.
So that's his second crime.
His second crime is we're reading his mind and we're seeing something in there that doesn't make sense according to anything in the outside world.
But we still see this weird thing in there that doesn't make any sense.
So he has to go to jail for that.
So he has to go to jail for using a word in a normal way that other people have defined as a weird way.
No evidence of knowing the wrong thing, but they read his mind and they saw that against every piece of evidence in the real world, they could see something in there that was opposite all the evidence in the real world.
And then the third thing he did, which had to do with the so-called fake slate of electors, is that he followed his lawyer's advice about how to keep his legal options open, which is the so-called fake slate of electors.
Who goes to jail for following their lawyer's advice that this would be completely legal and constitutional?
Do you go to jail for that?
I mean, I can imagine the ignorance of the law, you know, ignorance of the law is no excuse, so in theory you could, but under this specific situation, where there's no evidence that Trump had any belief except that the election was rigged, and that he wanted to keep his options open, and his lawyers told him that this would be a way to do it within the law, and then
The fact that the lawyers are being disbarred and punished suggests that they actually meant what they were doing, because they did it right in front of everybody.
So they must have believed they had a theory, even if other people don't trust a theory, which is normal in the law.
So, he used a word that they defined in a weird way.
They read his mind to find another crime, and then he followed his lawyer's advice to do something which historically has been done before without problems.
It's not the first time it's done.
And they put all this all together and decided that the real issue is whether he should be immune as a president from the three things that weren't crimes in the first place.
Now, do you wonder if any lawfare is happening here?
No.
It is absolute criminal behavior.
Jack Smith should be in jail.
Jack Smith should be in jail for this.
Now, do you suppose that the Biden White House was coordinating any of these things, which would be terrible if they were?
Well, it turns out that some unsealed documents now show that There was collaboration between the archives and the Biden White House on the Trump prosecution.
And Jeff Clark is on X. He's mocking Axios.
Because Axios says they're zeroing in on Matthew Colangelo, leaving the main justice to go to work on the Alvin Bragg prosecution team.
So here's Jeff Clark characterizing that.
He says, also try harder Axios.
This is a lame way of defending Colangelo and the Biden administration.
He goes, reality check.
Former DOG official Michael Zeldin told Axios, it's not unusual for a federal prosecutor to leave a gig at the Manhattan DA's office.
So it's not unusual for somebody to leave a gig they're on.
You know, in the office, to work on, let's say, a hot case.
Not unusual at all.
Call Angelo.
Call Angelo.
I'm being told that's how to say it.
Call Angelo.
But Jeff Clark says, no, it's not unusual for a Southern District of New York or Eastern District of New York prosecutor to go to the Manhattan DA's office, or vice versa.
Yeah, that's not unusual.
To go between those New York State offices.
Is that what happened?
Something normal?
You just wouldn't be from one New York State office to another?
No!
No, that's not what happened.
He was the number three, he was the acting number three official at the main justice in Washington, D.C.
And he went from the main justice, i.e.
working for the Biden administration, to all the way to the Manhattan DA's office.
That's not usual.
That is your smoking gun that the Biden administration was spearheading the lawfare against Trump.
There it is.
It's right in front of us.
But what percentage of the general public understands the story that I barely understand and I'm trying to tell you?
Two?
Two percent?
Of the entire public?
No more than two percent.
The law affair is so complicated that the normal person just says, nine to one indictments?
Well, he must have done something pretty bad.
But do you say, but, but, but, but, can't you see that the prosecutors were organized by Biden?
It's a smoking gun.
It's really obvious.
I mean, you don't really, you'd have to dig too deep to find out it's organized by the top.
That would obviously be a corruption of the, no.
At most, 2% of the country cares about the story and would care enough to understand the details of it.
It's really clever.
The government can get away with a lot just by making everything too complicated to really follow what's going on.
It looks like that's what's happening there.
The Arizona grand jury on Wednesday, they indicted And we'll see you next time.
Let's see, Mark Meadows, Rudy Giuliani, and a bunch of other former Trump staffers.
So now 11 Arizona Republicans have been indicted on the felony charges, along with former Trump attorneys, John Eastman, Jan Ellis, Christy Bob, and allegations of conspiracy, fraud, and forgery.
So I think this had to do with efforts to, what they say, overturn the results of the 2020 election.
Remember when I told you in 2020 that if Biden were elected, Republicans would be haunted?
What is this?
This is exactly what I told you would happen.
That they're actually rounding up attorneys and Republican officials and trying to jail them for things that look pretty, pretty suspicious As in, it looks like they were operating within the law as they saw it anyway.
And this does look like just hunting.
I think all of these people belong in jail if there's any way to do it.
Not the people who are indicted here.
I mean the people doing the lawfare and corrupting the justice system.
They all need to be in jail.
Big time.
Jonathan Turley was on Fox News today and said that the best lawyer for Trump is Alvin Bragg, because that Manhattan case is so absurd.
That would be the Stormy Daniels one, where he's being convicted for a non-crime, for the accounting after the fact of a non-crime.
Like, no, we don't even understand it.
It's so stupid.
If they're felony, they may then have two misdemeanors.
How does that even work?
So, but again, I think you would have to be Jonathan Turley, or in the top 2% of people paying attention who can really follow details, to even know that this case is ridiculous.
All the public knows is that Trump's in court.
Try asking any Democrat to explain the details of that case.
Do you think you can do it?
I think they would immediately change the topic.
So, can you explain to me why Trump is in jail for this Stormy Daniels thing?
Well, he paid hush money.
Okay, but he's not being charged with paying hush money.
Well, he's indicted for 91 things.
Well, no, but that's sort of overall.
Could you tell me what the Stormy thing is about?
Well, he lied.
He lied on his How he accounted for it Okay, but are you following the details that there wasn't any way to do it legally?
he couldn't call it a personal expense because that would be illegal and he couldn't call the business a Campaign expense because that would be called illegal and those are the only options So he basically had two ways to account for the legal thing and both of the ways to account for the legal thing Would have been illegal So there wasn't even any legal way to pay his taxes or to go out for it.
Now, do you think any, do you think any Democrat even understands that none of this is even, doesn't even make sense?
It's just absurd.
Of course not.
They just see he's in court every day and that's all Biden needs.
All right.
Two thirds of people, according to Axios, what they call the vibe check, they say that, Two-thirds of Americans said illegal immigration is a real crisis and not a politically driven media narrative.
Two-thirds of the country believes that Biden has created a crisis at the border.
Two-thirds.
So, there's one thing we can say from that.
I mean, it's a top priority.
Two-thirds think that it's Biden's fault, you know, that he's creating it.
He can stop it anytime he wants, presumably.
So, I mean, that's pretty strong evidence that the polling, I mean, you'd guess that the polling would be what, Trump plus 20?
Probably at least plus 20 under this environment, I think.
Yeah.
What else?
Let's see.
Also, according to Axios, half of the people, half of Americans polled Said they support mass deportations of undocumented immigrants.
Well, I mean, you're just talking about the Republicans, right?
Oh, no.
42% of Democrats are in favor of mass deportation of undocumented immigrants, according to the Axios Vibe Survey by the Harris Poll.
42% of Democrats support mass deportation.
Wow.
I mean, with numbers like that, there's one thing you can say for sure.
Trump, in the overall polls, he's got to be up 20 to 30 points, I would think, over Biden.
I mean, with that massive amount of support for what is not just Trump's policy, but really his brand.
I mean, his whole brand is this.
And even 42% of Democrats are totally on board with it.
So yeah, I would say that Trump in the national polls would be up 20 to 30 points under this environment.
Wouldn't you say?
I mean, common sense.
He'd be up 20 to 30 points.
So, let's see, what else?
Well, Biden has suggested a gigantic tax increase and some ridiculous increases in capital gains that are so stupid I'm not even going to talk about them, they're so ridiculous.
Now, when you add this to the border crisis, that during a presidential year, one of them is talking about massively raising your taxes.
So, I mean, if you put this together with how unpopular Biden's border policy is, and the fact that the Ukraine war is, you know, not super popular, I think you'd have to say that President Trump or ex-President Trump would be up 30, probably 30 to 40 points in the national poll.
I mean, based on this.
Wouldn't you agree?
I mean, these numbers are really, really just absolutely devastating.
So then Rasmussen said that 56%, they did a poll, 56% of voters agreed with the statement that with President Trump, we had mean tweets, but world peace.
So 56% would prefer President Trump's mean tweets because it gave them world peace.
Well, okay.
So now Trump is massively leading on the border crisis.
He is massively ahead, of course, on taxes, because nobody wants higher taxes.
And of course, he's massively ahead on world peace.
Well, I mean, that's the end.
I mean, with that kind of a lead, I think it's pretty obvious That if we check the polls, Trump would be up, I started with 20%, but when you see all of these issues, when you see the individual polling and all these issues, I'd say the national polls, Trump would be up 40 to 50 basis points, minimum.
So next story.
Oh, here's another one.
Um, all right, well, So the next story is that Biden has pulled ahead in the polling.
Biden has pulled ahead in a national, so the Marist poll, and I don't know, there's another one.
He's pulled ahead.
So that's true, right?
So on every single sub-question of policy, Trump doesn't just win, he annihilates them.
But at the top level, Biden has pulled ahead.
He's actually got momentum.
Yeah.
So, that's right.
The only news that Biden made yesterday was that he wants to massively increase taxes in a way that appears stupid to anybody smart.
And he read his teleprompter, including the word pause, Because he didn't know that was a command to him to pause and wait for the audience reaction.
That's the only news he made.
So that's why he's pulling ahead in the polls.
Because nothing happened good?
Here's another one.
We're also told in the news that the RFK Jr.
candidacy hurts Trump more than Biden.
It hurts Trump more than Biden.
That's what the news says.
Do you believe that?
That the RFK Jr.
thing hurt?
Because I've heard the opposite, but now the news is saying, no, we looked at it a little more closely.
It turns out the RFK Jr.
thing is hurting Trump more.
Do you know how you know that's true?
Do you know how you know that the Democrats believe that RFK Jr.
is hurting Trump more than Biden?
Well, it's obvious.
Because that's why They won't give Secret Service protection to RFK Jr., and it's why they're trying to keep him off the ballot in all the states.
Because if he gets murdered or he gets off the ballot, wait, that's the opposite of what they want.
No.
The news is telling me that RFK Jr.
hurts Trump, and yet the Democrats are trying to get rid of RFK Jr.
either through assassination, Or keeping off the ballot, even though if he lived and was on the ballot, it would be good for Biden, according to the news.
It's almost like the news isn't real.
I'm starting to think the news is fake.
By the way, Jarek Lubarek made that observation, that their policies definitely show they don't want RFK Jr.
in the race.
They definitely don't.
So yeah, I think our polling is a little wonky at the moment.
Thomas Massey posted today, the Republic is in trouble because Congress is full of people who are happy to rubber stamp whatever the Pentagon, State Department, DOG, FBI, Feds want.
Most are not compromised or bribed.
I think he's right on that.
They're just going along to get along as long as you reelect them and let them wear the pin.
Wear the pin.
I think it's the Ukraine pin.
I agree with this.
I think that we have a zombie government, and we're driving toward a cliff with our debt.
Everything else we can survive.
Can't survive the debt.
So they get the zombie car, driving toward the cliff, and there's absolutely nothing that's going to change the direction.
And Thomas Massey's in the middle of it, and he's telling you, there's nothing happening that will change the direction of the car.
Do you know what would change it?
If somebody had a number of how much you could cut the budget to save us all, and that number was believable and low enough, if Trump or maybe Vivek with a boost could come up with that number, it's the only number that matters.
There's one number that you need to know.
It's that number.
Nobody has ever tried to produce it, or even estimate it.
Why is that?
Yeah, I think the number is so big it's shocking.
If they told you how much they had to reduce the debt, I think you would see it can't be done, and that's why they don't tell you.
I think you would give up.
And I think that's what Thomas Massey is saying directly.
There's nothing that's going to keep the clown car from going off the cliff, And there's nothing developing that would stop it.
Because you don't see Trump saying, if I get elected, I'll cut the budget by enough to fix the debt.
You don't see him saying it.
And you know that they're smart enough, at least now, with Vivek on the case.
And by the way, let me say this directly, Vivek, if there is a number that would work, you know, even if it's an Argentina-like gigantic number, We need to hear it.
Win or lose, we need to know the number.
We need to know if we have a fighting chance.
Just give us some hope.
Tell us the number and then tell us Trump's going to hit it.
I just want to hear that he's got a shot at it.
I just want to feel we have any chance of survival.
And none of the people running are giving you anything that looks like a plan to avoid extinction.
I don't think it's too much to ask our potential and actual leaders to give us a plan that would give us any hope we could avoid extinction.
That's not a lot to ask.
And if Peter, if, uh, if we can't get it from Trump, well, then we're just dead.
Cause we're not going to get it from Biden.
So give us some hope.
Vivek, you're the only one, you know, that's true, right?
There's literally, it's the Spider-Man problem.
Spider-Man problem.
The Spider-Man problem is that with great power comes great responsibility.
Tell me one other person in politics who could give you the number and sell it.
All right, this is what we got to do to cut the government.
We just have to do it.
It's going to hurt.
We got to do it.
Vivek, give us the number.
And if it's completely impractical, tell us what you're going to do about it.
Tell us how to make it practical.
You don't have to be right.
You know, the world is a complicated place.
You can't always predict the future.
But give us some hope.
Give us some hope.
Because the news is not doing it, and I don't see Trump doing it.
I think the Democrats are correct when they say that Trump is being non-specific about what he'd do.
I think he can get away with it, because you know how he operates.
So, if Trump doesn't tell you what he would do with Gaza, is that a feature or a problem?
We don't know what Trump would do about Israel and Gaza.
I don't know.
Is that a feature?
Or a problem?
It's a feature.
Yeah.
The last thing I want is for Trump to tell me what he would do.
Because what he sells is unpredictability, followed by good negotiated outcomes.
That's what he's selling.
I'll give you unpredictability, followed by negotiating something you won't be too unhappy about.
It's a feature.
So stop asking him to be specific about Israel, because being unspecific is exactly the right play.
Until he gets there.
Until he's got the levers of power in his hands, don't get too serious about the details.
But when it comes to national debt, I need a plan.
The national debt, I don't need unpredictability.
And I don't need Trump to do what he's done before, which is run up the debt.
So you can't tell me, oh, trust Trump because you know what he does.
No, he runs up the debt.
You'd better tell me something besides that.
And I need to hear it first.
In fact, let me, I'll be this specific.
If Biden came up with a plan to fix the debt that sounded workable, I would back him because it's the only thing I care about.
I mean, I'll probably vote on the January 6th prisoners more than anything.
But that assumes neither of them has a plan for the debt.
But if somebody comes up with a debt plan, you own me.
If you come up with a real plan to own the debt, I'm on board.
I'm on board.
So let's see if that's even possible.
If we're doomed, I'd like to find out sooner than later.
I'd like to adjust.
Yeah.
Give it, give me a little time to, you know, get my food supplies in and get my, get my seed sprouter working.
All right.
I had one other thing I reminded myself to talk about, but I already did.
So that's good.
I think what's going to happen is a major shift in society.
I don't know what will trigger it, but it's, it's guaranteed to happen.
I think our old method of, You know, you get a job, you buy a house, you retire at 65, you know, after you had your two and a half kids, that might be gone forever.
I think it might be a mistake to try to get back to it.
I hate to say, um, certainly for some people, the family situation is going to be the number one thing forever, but there's a whole bunch of people who just need some other way of living.
And it could be robots.
It could be combinations of... I think what we need is engineered lifestyle.
Now there's a phrase I doubt you've ever heard.
Engineered lifestyle.
Here's what I mean by that.
I like to use my college dormitory experience.
When I lived in a college dormitory, it was the lowest quality of life Because I was just in a little cinder block room with another person, my roommate, and it's sort of the lowest level of privacy, the lowest level of space, but I was the happiest.
And it's because they engineered the lifestyle.
As soon as I opened the door and walked out, There would be people my age, fun people.
There'd be girls that I was interested in.
You know, I would go to classes.
It was a nice environment.
I could walk to everything.
I didn't need a car on campus.
The food was provided at a place where everybody else went, so I'd see everybody else.
When I went to check my mailbox, other people would be checking the mailbox so I could interact with them.
We had parties.
We had organizations on campus where we'd all get together.
It was an engineered lifestyle.
So I'd be getting something productive done.
I was learning, you know, preparing myself for life.
But during the entire process, every moment was pretty cool because I was around other people.
I wanted to be around in a physical environment that was beautiful and everything was taken care of from the, it was easy to do the laundry.
Just everything was easy.
Now, if you build your new city from scratch to maximize lifestyle, You're going to get an amazing result.
We know we can do it.
That's what college is.
It's a perfect lifestyle for a while.
So I think that's the answer to everything.
The answer to everything is engineered lifestyle.
So you put people in proximity who can take care of each other.
How would you like to always know that somebody had your back in a tribal sense?
Oh, let me ask you this.
For the people on Locals who have already seen my explanation about concentrating on yourself and mental illness, do you think that's worth saying to the larger crowd here?
It's a little speculative.
Well, I think I'll do it.
So here's something I said privately to the Locals subscribers, but I want to just put this out here just for fun.
Don't take this too literally scientifically because I don't have any scientific backing for it.
But one of the things I hear a lot is that you can identify people who have mental illnesses by how much they refer to themselves versus how much they refer to the external environment and other people.
Have you all heard that?
It's sort of a common thing I see on social media that some expert will say, yes, we did a study.
And if you look at people's writing on social media, when they're doing a lot of self-referential stuff, they usually test out with mental illness.
And if they're talking about the external world, they're usually much more mentally insane.
Now, one of the things I realized is that most we've got this giant uptick in mental illness.
What do a lot of the mental illness categories have in common?
They're all self-referential.
Meaning, if I have anxiety, I'm just thinking about myself.
Something's going to happen to me.
I'm in trouble.
Things are going to happen to me.
It's about me, me, me.
If you're a narcissist, it's literally a thing about yourself.
If you're a sociopath, it's literally all about you.
If you're depressed, it's literally all about you because you have this horrible feeling.
You're not really thinking about the rest of the world.
You're thinking about how bad you feel.
And so I put forward the following hypothesis.
We know that mental health went to hell when social media got bigger.
So there's a pretty direct line to smartphones and social media and mental health going bad.
What does social media do at a sort of macro level?
I think it makes you think of yourself.
The one thing that social media does is make you think of yourself.
Now you're thinking of yourself in relationship to the other people you're seeing, but those other people are not in your tribe or your family.
So you don't get any benefits from them.
So in other words, there's no social benefit like you get in the real world.
But they make you think, what can I do where I could be like them?
Where's my TikTok dance?
So I think social media has the impact Of forcing people to think more internally about how to act differently to be like the people on social media.
Now, in some ways you're saying, but isn't that thinking about the other people?
Yes, but not in the good way.
Thinking about other people in the good way is how can I make somebody else happier?
How can I make my spouse happier?
How can I help my kids?
How can I help my friends?
How can I help my coworkers?
That's the good way.
If what you're thinking is, how can I compete with them because they're prettier than me?
I've got to do something for me to make me as pretty as the other.
That's thinking about yourself.
And so I submit to you the following experiment, which would cost you nothing.
See, if you're having any of these mental difficulties, and you've not found any relief through all the normal mechanisms, Try focusing less on yourself and see if the cause and effect goes both ways.
Because I do think that if you have mental illness it's going to make you think of yourself because you've got a problem you have to solve.
So it makes sense that it works that direction.
Being unhealthy makes you think of yourself because you need to fix yourself.
That makes sense.
But could it also be true That if you could force yourself by creating a system or a habit of making sure you did something for other people, you volunteer, you help somebody, it's charity, it's something.
It's just something external.
If you did that, could you reverse some of your own mental illness?
And that's what I don't know.
So it's just speculation.
But if you look at the fact that we don't know the mechanism by which these smartphones and social media are destroying our mental health, I would suggest the mechanism might be obvious.
It makes you think of yourself, and when you feel lonely, now here's the real speculative theory behind it, I'm going to give you a hypothesis for why thinking about yourself makes you crazy in a variety of mental health ways.
I think that we evolved to be social creatures, and that who we are, in the past, was an extension of our tribal and family feelings.
So that we defined ourselves as part of the tribe.
So that gave you meaning, it gave you a place, and it connected you to this bigger thing.
I think that when you're forced to think of yourself, You are removed from your evolutionary, biological, most basic need, which you evolve to, which is to have a tribal, very dependent, connected situation in your life.
And that as soon as you think of yourself as a free agent, floating around without a family and without a tribe, you go crazy.
You go crazy.
And you notice that the effect seems much worse for women, right?
Do you have a hypothesis for why it would be worse for women?
I do.
Because I think women need that connection more than men.
Because men are, we've evolved to be expendable.
We've evolved to go live in the woods, if we have to.
We've evolved to be individuals.
We don't necessarily love it.
But we're a little more adapted to it.
You know, we can make it work a little bit better.
So I think everything is consistent with the fact that loneliness, but more specifically, thinking about yourself, is what makes you crazy.
Because nothing else really changed except maybe, you know, vaccinations, but that came later.
Food supply probably didn't change that much during that period.
The only thing that changed a lot was social media and phones, and you can explain perfectly everything you see by this hypothesis.
It would show you why women are having a harder time than men, it would show you the exact timing of it, and it would explain the thinking about yourself thing makes you crazy, thinking about others doesn't.
It basically integrates everything we observe into one hypothesis.
But here's the cool thing.
You don't have to wait to find out if it's true.
You could literally just say, why don't I spend a month trying to force myself to think externally?
Just see what happens.
My guess is that you would be happier.
Does anybody doubt it?
Is there anybody who thinks that they would be less happy if they found some meaning in making other people better off?
I think you all know that it would work.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is my contribution to civilization.
Let your upbeat thought about this.
I do think we can engineer ourselves out of all of our problems, but we won't do it with a President Biden.
We won't do it with a President Biden.
So we got to fix that first.
And Republicans need to stay in the jail and they got to put the bad guys in jail.
So as long as the good guys are going to jail and the bad guys are putting them in jail, we really don't have a way to survive.
You got to fix that first.
So there's a whole bunch of Democrats who need to be behind bars.
And the only way to do that is to get a Republican leadership in there.
Now, um, I don't think we should have a Republican leadership forever.
I kind of liked the idea of maybe it goes back and forth a little bit, keeps everybody honest, but at the moment, We desperately need a Republican leadership.
The pendulum is just way out of balance.
It needs to find the center somehow.
So even if you don't love the idea of a Republican leadership forever, I don't.
I don't want either side to have too much power for too long.
I really want it now, though.
I really, really, really want a Republican now.
Ask me again in five years, I'll tell you, well, it's a little too much.
We went a little too Republican there.
Maybe.
I don't know.
But I know your mileage might be different.
All right, that's all I got for you today.
I'm going to say goodbye probably to all of the platforms, but I'm going to see if we've got this feature fixed yet where I can say goodbye to only the people who are not my subscribers.
So we're going to try this button again, see if it makes any difference.
