Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 4, 2024 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams

01:18:13

Episode 2463 CWSA 05/03/24

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	With a little bit of serotonin mixed in.
	It's called the simultaneous sip and happens...
	Ow.
	Do you feel connected to everyone who is sipping all around the world?
	More so than even the internet itself.
	Yes, more so.
	Well, we got all kinds of news today.
	What kinds of news?
	Waiting for a little bit of a confirmation before I can tell you something that will possibly excite you.
	I'll find out about that in a little bit.
	Well, I came up with a new insult for AI.
	It's in the Dilbert Reborn comic, which you can only see if you're subscribing to it on the X platform, see my profile link, or on the Locals platform, scottadams.locals.com.
	And Wally's got an AI girlfriend and He calls her a, wait for it, wait for it, it's an AI insult.
	So Wally calls his AI girlfriend a stupid bit.
	B-I-T.
	A stupid bit.
	Now you could use that for your AI insults.
	You stupid bit!
	I thought it was pretty good.
	Okay.
	Well, there's a story about a nine-year-old girl who's a chess prodigy.
	And apparently she's dominating a competition which is typically more associated with boys.
	So the story is nine-year-old prodigy girl who can play even better than most of the boys.
	Yes.
	So you go girl.
	There's something missing from the story.
	Hold on.
	Let's see.
	It's 2024.
	There's a story about A female dominating in a male competition.
	Well, there's something missing in the story.
	There's no word whatsoever on her genitalia.
	How in the world am I supposed to understand this in the larger context that a female is competing and winning in a dominant male category?
	Unless I know if she was born with a penis.
	I feel like the context of this is completely missing.
	Yeah, that's right.
	Our brains have been broken by the news.
	The fact that you would have to think about this, it's like, were you born a girl or?
	I'm just wondering, just curious.
	Well, speaking of girls and their brains, there's a Washington Post story about a new study that says menopause brain is real.
	You know, that explains a lot.
	Did you ever wonder why the Washington Post still employed Phil Bump?
	and found out that they had less gray matter and reduced their attention and their concentration and their language and memory were all reduced when they were in their menopause years.
	You know, that explains a lot. Did you ever wonder why the Washington Post still employed Phil Bump?
	It's because of that healthy male brain. I think, I mean, it's a Washington Post story, so they must be aware that their older female writers have, well, you know, a lot less gray matter and volume than they used to, and maybe the areas of their brains involving attention, concentration, language, and memory are a little bit decreased.
	But thank God, thank God they still have Phil Bump, so they can write some quality stories, even while the brains of their female correspondents are rotting in their heads, according to them.
	Here's something I wonder if it would be important to see in this story.
	Do you think there's anything missing in the story?
	Such as, did they scan male brains when they reached 45 to 50, which is about the time that menopause kicks in?
	Do you think that male brains would look just as good as they used to?
	When you reach 45 or 50?
	Do you think that when you start measuring your pot-bellied 45-year-old men that haven't exercised since they were 25 and their brains are going to look just right?
	Isn't this story missing the biggest thing?
	How in the world can you say that the women's brains have degraded because of menopause unless the study also did men of the same age?
	Because if they all have the same brain degradation, it's probably the food.
	That's right.
	The food is fucking killing us.
	It's poison.
	If you eat American food for, you know, 45 years, what do you think your brain looks like?
	I'm not sure they've isolated this to menopause is what I'm saying.
	You know, do you remember when you used to think science was real?
	Science isn't real.
	It's just a bunch of stories in the news.
	The odds of this being completely right and in context, I mean, it might be right that the brains are different over time, but it's out of context.
	Unless you show what the male brains, I don't know anything because it could be the food.
	I mean, if you have to guess, If you saw the typical American walking down the highway, down the street, typical American male, just imagine the typical 50 year old American male.
	What's he look like in your brain?
	Unhealthy.
	There's no way that your brain is healthy when your body's unhealthy.
	I would never believe that.
	All right.
	China is getting ready to launch their rocket to the moon and they're going to create a moon base and dominate us all.
	Maybe.
	Or the other possibility is what they've really created is a giant rocket that really is a movie studio.
	And when the Chinese astronauts, you know, it looks, it looks to us like they're getting inside the capsule of the rocket.
	Maybe it's just a studio in there.
	And they go in there and like, Hey, Bob, sound man here.
	Get the boom over here.
	Lighting, lighting.
	And then they shoot their little fake moon film up in the capsule.
	And then they do a little AI to make it look like the rocket took off.
	No?
	What if they really get to the moon and land on it?
	How many of you believe it's not possible to put a person on the moon because of the radiation belt?
	I heard some people saying, There's no way that America landed on the moon because the radiation belt would have killed them.
	Just getting through it.
	What if the Chinese do it?
	What if they put a person on the moon?
	Are you going to believe that America went?
	Or are you going to say to yourself, Scott, do you know how much technology was invented between 1969 and today?
	Quite a bit.
	Maybe they know how to do it now.
	Yeah, so you're not going to be convinced.
	I know you won't be convinced.
	I think we went to the moon.
	But honestly, it would be fun to find out I was wrong.
	It'd be kind of fun to find that out.
	All right, I'm waiting for breaking news.
	I'm I'm just watching my DMs.
	If I get a DM during the show, I'll have some breaking news for you that you're going to want to wait for.
	You're going to want to hear it.
	I promise you.
	All right.
	There's another study.
	Oh, they wasted a bunch of money doing something that they could have asked me.
	Do you know how many scientific studies have been done?
	They were a complete waste of time because you really just could have asked me.
	Just ask me next time.
	All right, here's another one.
	Negative language boosts online news consumption, studies suggest, whereas positive words have had the opposite effect.
	Really?
	You didn't know that?
	Is there anybody who's been watching the news landscape for the last 10 years who didn't know that negative headlines will get you more clicks?
	It's the entire business model of the media.
	And they had to do a study to find out if it's real.
	Of course it's real!
	Yes!
	It's not an accident that the news is all these negative, you know, world's on fire and hurricanes are gonna kill us all and Trump's a dictator and Yeah, it's not an accident.
	It gets you more clicks.
	So could have saved quite a bit of money by asking me whether unicorns and rainbows get you more clicks than genocide and pandemic.
	Could have answered that one.
	Well, over in the UK, some unknown guy tried to vote and was turned away because he didn't have his photo ID.
	Some guy named, well he claims, we don't really know what his name is, but he claims his name is Boris Johnson and that he was some kind of a political leader in the UK.
	It's his claim.
	But when he showed up to vote, they're like, we don't know who the fuck you are.
	If you don't get some ID, you're not voting here.
	Because you know what's different about the UK?
	Then the United States.
	By the way, that's a real story.
	He got turned away.
	He didn't have his ID.
	Can you imagine the person who was working the booth?
	It was like, and you are?
	I'm Boris Johnson.
	I used to be your prime minister.
	Are you?
	Because his face isn't really ringing a bell.
	No, I swear, I'm Boris Johnson.
	I was in the news.
	I was the leader of the country.
	I've made a lot of news.
	I'm responsible for the war in Ukraine.
	It's really my entire fault.
	Boris Johnson.
	Johnson?
	You said Johnson, right?
	Boris Johnson!
	I was the Prime Minister!
	Hmm.
	I don't know.
	It's not... I don't know.
	I just don't see it.
	You're gonna have to get some idea and come back.
	Now, you know what I call that, because I'm American?
	I mean, I see this through a different filter than they do in the UK.
	Clearly racist.
	Because if there's one thing I can tell you about the UK, none of those white idiots know how to get an ID.
	They don't know how.
	They're all incompetent.
	Every white person in the UK, they don't even know how to get an ID.
	They're all wandering around in the streets.
	They have to stop the black people to ask them how to get an ID in the UK.
	They'll see a black person.
	They'll say, excuse me, are you a citizen?
	Well, yes, I am.
	I'm a citizen.
	Did you get an ID?
	Yes, I did.
	It was quite easy.
	Can you teach me how to do that?
	I don't know how to do that.
	So that's what's happening over there.
	Apple announced $110 billion share buyback.
	$110 billion share buyback, the biggest in history.
	Is that good news or bad news?
	It means that if you're a stockholder, your stock will go up because they're buying their own stock.
	So they're competing with the stock market by buying back their own stock, which drives its price up, which is why they do it.
	Yes, if you studied economics, or even if you've heard of economics, you would know that the largest cash buyback in history tells you that they don't have any good ideas for their own money.
	Did you know that?
	The only reason a company does a cash buyback is that they have more cash than they have good ideas of how to spend it in a way that could make you money as a stockholder.
	It's basically a surrender.
	Now, they came out with their, what was it, the Vision Pro AR glasses.
	I heard those did not sell too well.
	And when it first came out, I said to myself, there's a product Steve Jobs would not have launched.
	I just don't think Steve Jobs would have even launched that product.
	I don't know what he would have done.
	I mean, he does things that we didn't expect to be done, so you can't really anticipate it.
	But I feel like the rose or the shine is off the bloom or the bloom is off the rose or there's some kind of saying like that.
	So I will tell you that I sold all of my Apple stock several months ago.
	Primarily because AI was too much of a threat.
	Every time I use S-I-R-I, I don't want to say the word out loud, every time I use it I say to myself, what happened to this company?
	It feels like I'm using 1970s technology, just to ask it what the weather is.
	And then I open up any AI app, and the AI apps understand every word I say.
	And they've got to just shout at my phone, I want the weather!
	The weather!
	No, not the time.
	No, the weather!
	That's me using my phone.
	And Berkshire Hathaway is getting some, uh, some, let's say eyebrows going up because Apple's, I think their biggest holding and they made a ton of money on it.
	But, uh, nobody's quite sure that Warren Buffett is still the Warren Buffett of old, or is he just old Warren Buffett?
	We don't know if he's the, Steve Jobs is investing still, or maybe he's crossed over to the not-so-capable side.
	He's very old.
	We'll soon know.
	Tulsi Gabbard was on Joe Rogan, and she said that the TikTok bill, the bill that would ban it if they don't divest, is the most egregious violation of civil liberties since the Patriot Act.
	Do you agree with that?
	Do you think that banning TikTok, which is a free speech platform of sorts, do you believe it's one of the, or the, most egregious violation of civil liberties since the Patriot Act?
	How many would agree with that statement?
	Well, here's what I say.
	It might be true.
	It might be true.
	But what's missing in the opinion?
	What's missing in the opinion is the alternative.
	It's a half-pinion.
	A half-pinion is a useless thing that comes out of somebody's mouth.
	Now, I love Tulsi Gabbard.
	So as a political figure and a politician, she's got a lot going for her.
	But I don't like half-pinions.
	If you're going to say that there's something wrong with banning TikTok, I think you're obligated To say what would happen if you don't do it.
	What's the downside of doing it and what's the downside of not doing it?
	I would agree with her characterization that it would be a massive violation of civil liberties in the limited sense that it would decrease the platform for people saying what they want to say.
	That's true.
	But if you don't simultaneously say That's better or worse than having China be able to control your politics?
	Now, we don't know exactly if China pushed the heat button on the Gaza situation, but it sure looks like it.
	And the fact that you don't know is a problem enough.
	The fact that we don't know if the biggest political issue at the moment, you know, with the protests in the colleges, we don't know if that's real.
	We don't know if China pushed the heat button and got you a 50 to 1 pro-Palestinian opinion, or if that was just what people were already thinking, and it just expressed itself on the platform.
	Because I don't believe the other platforms look like that.
	Which would be, you know, of course they have slightly different customer profiles, so that might be it as well.
	But no, the big risk is that China can push a button and change and just brainwash Americans.
	And I'll say it again, because I know there's somebody listening to this and saying, Scott, Scott, Scott, but what about Facebook and Instagram and everybody does it?
	To which I say, if you can solve one of your problems, but not both of them, Wouldn't you solve one of them?
	Well, if you can't solve two, you wouldn't solve one?
	I would solve anything I could solve.
	That would be the way I'd play it.
	All right, I've been confused, and do you ever have these situations where you're sure everybody knows something that's common knowledge, but you don't know it, and it goes too long, and you can't admit you don't know it?
	Do you have any of those situations?
	It could be something like really normal, and like everybody uses the word, and you're like, uh-huh, yep.
	And then it goes too long, and you haven't asked anybody what it really is, and then you can't, because you're like, seriously?
	You're asking me what AI is?
	It's 2024.
	You've never heard the words artificial intelligence.
	Yeah, so it's sort of like that.
	Well, that's me and Marxism.
	Now, clearly, you know, I knew who Karl Marx was, and I know what socialism is, and communism, and I knew the general tenets of Marxism.
	I mean, I knew the general idea, like any educated person.
	But here's the part I didn't understand.
	Why does anybody like it?
	Because everything I knew about it was bad.
	I didn't know any good things.
	And so I asked ChatGPT, To explain Marxism to me.
	And I started out by saying, I asked, what are the benefits of Marxism?
	And I talked about achieving, you know, some kind of economic fairness.
	And when it was done, I thought to myself, okay.
	And it was also about criticisms of capitalism.
	So Marxism isn't just about what they want to do.
	It's as much or even more, some would say, about what they don't want to do.
	And they don't want to do capitalism.
	And so I naively asked, well, so why does everybody like it?
	And the answer was, for all the fairness.
	Because people don't like an unfair capitalist system that rewards the rich and takes from the poor.
	And I thought to myself, okay, alright.
	So then I had a follow-up question.
	I said, which of the top ten economies of the world are Marxist?
	And they said, uh, none.
	And I said, well, how do you explain that it's popular when it seems to have never worked in the real world even once?
	And every time they tried it, it was a huge failure and people died.
	And then ChatGPT stopped working.
	It just stopped working.
	It just wouldn't answer any questions anymore.
	Now, I assume it was just a coincidence and a little technical glitch, but I don't know the answer.
	And ChatGPT just, like, gave up when I tried to give it the answer.
	And I wondered if that is yet another category that's hard-coded in the system.
	For example, if you ask questions about climate change, do you think you're going to get ChatGPT's opinion on it?
	No, you won't.
	No.
	You get a hard-coded, programmers-installed opinion on climate change, and it won't vary from that.
	Now do you think they did the same thing with Marxism?
	Do you think that ChatGPT is capable of giving you an independent opinion of what it knows from history and what is obvious in patterns and the rest?
	I don't know.
	It might actually be programmed to not criticism socialism or any form of it.
	It might be.
	Now, I can't tell, because it just quit when I tried.
	But you should try and see.
	Just see for yourself and let me know.
	I've never met a Marxist.
	I've never met one that I'm aware of.
	I mean, I assume I've met one, but maybe didn't admit it.
	Because here's how the conversation would go.
	Can you give me any example where it's ever worked?
	And how do you explain why people would work hard if they didn't have extra incentives to work hard?
	And I just want to see what somebody says.
	Here's how I think it would go.
	Hey, I'm just intellectually curious.
	I'm not arguing with you.
	I don't have an opinion yet.
	I'm just trying to get informed.
	Could you tell me what a Marxist economic system would look like?
	And has it ever worked before?
	And if it's never worked, Why would you be in favor of it?
	And then just see what they say.
	What would they say?
	Here's what I think they would say.
	Well, why don't you take your patriarchal white supremacy and go shove it up your ass?
	We're busy protesting.
	I don't think they would be able to answer the question.
	I think they would have to just accuse me of a crime and change the subject.
	Because as far as I know, there is no argument for it.
	Now, am I the first person to tell you this?
	Am I the first person to tell you that although I knew you already didn't like Marxism, but did you know there's not an argument for it?
	Not an argument that you disagree with.
	That's not what I'm saying.
	I'm not saying there's an argument and you disagree with it.
	I'm saying there isn't one.
	Am I wrong?
	That there is not an argument for it?
	There's only a criticism of capitalism.
	And the criticisms of capitalism are completely unnecessary because we all see the same stuff.
	Do any of you think that a billionaire lives the same as a middle-class person?
	No.
	Do you think the billionaire is a better person in some way than the middle-class person?
	No.
	No, we don't think that.
	Do we think it's fair That somebody made a billion dollars manipulating money, basically adding nothing to the process, versus somebody who did your plumbing and really made a difference?
	Do we think that's fair?
	No.
	But I don't need Marxism to help me out, do I?
	And I also say that fairness is an argument for idiots and children, because nothing in the world is fair, nor should it be.
	So Marxism is a weird thing, that our press Never ask the Marxist how it could work.
	Think about all the interviews you've seen of the press and some protester or something.
	There are plenty of protesters and plenty of people who would identify as Marxists.
	Have you ever seen anybody put a microphone in their face and say, we understand the part about the criticisms of capitalism and even capitalists agree?
	Don't they?
	Even if you're a capitalist, you would say, yeah, capitalism has all these excesses and problems, but nobody has a better idea.
	That's pretty much the whole argument, is that nobody really has a better idea, and the top ten economies are all basically, you know, either driven by or primarily capitalist.
	So, why doesn't anybody even ask the question?
	It's kind of obviously missing, isn't it?
	And the only thing I can think of is that the people on the left Can't ask the question, because their allies like it, and the people on the right don't need to.
	Because there's not a single person who watches Fox News who's pro-Marxist.
	So the people who watch Fox News, the Fox News people can say, look at these dumb Marxists, and there's no other explanation needed.
	Because everybody who watches that channel knows they're not offering anything that you want.
	Right?
	But if you're watching CNN, you might be saying to yourself, you know, I like this part about where they criticize capitalism.
	Yeah, maybe these Marxists have something after all, right?
	If you don't see any criticism of Marxism on any left-leaning network, what would you think if you're 21 and you're in college and you've never seen a criticism of it?
	Because you don't watch Fox News, you're not reading Breitbart.
	What would you think?
	If you only heard good, and you never heard bad, you'd think it might be worth a shot.
	So, yeah, there's a news problem here, as well as college.
	I saw Alan Dershowitz's podcast the other day, and he was talking about the protests and the funding of it.
	And let me just say this again.
	I don't know how many times I have to say this.
	But you don't have to love Alan Dershowitz for everything he thinks and everything he's ever done in his personal life.
	Who knows what that is, right?
	That has nothing to do with me.
	But I'm going to tell you, you just don't see a better communicator, a better persuader.
	Oh my God, just listening to him talk off the top of his head without notes for like 40 minutes.
	It's amazing.
	And Yeah, they could put him under the CAT scan and I'll bet his brain looks exactly like it did when he was 25, if not better.
	It looks like he's getting smarter or something.
	I mean, he's in his 80s.
	Just incredible mental acuity that just blows me away.
	Anyway, do you remember I said there's only one reason that we don't know already who's funding the protests and organizing them?
	And do you remember what I said?
	What's the only reason you wouldn't know?
	If it's coming from our government.
	Right?
	The only reason you wouldn't know.
	Let me check on the news.
	Breaking news.
	Breaking news.
	Rasmussen just did a new presidential poll in a three-way race with RFK Jr., Trump.
	RFK Jr., Trump, and Biden.
	According to the Rasmussen poll that just broke one minute ago, Trump is up nationally.
	By 10.
	10 points.
	10 points.
	Do you remember what number I told you is the magic number?
	10 points.
	Double digits.
	Trump has to win this thing by double digits.
	Anything else, and we'd probably lose the country.
	Because this might be the last chance that a populist could ever break through the wall.
	He just has too much power for the system, which is very strong, to keep him out unless they kill him or change the rules.
	General Flynn just said as recently as today, I think, that he does, or yesterday, that he does expect that the government will declare some kind of emergency and do something to cancel the elections.
	And he says he's talking based on, you know, the rumblings that he's hearing.
	It's not just sitting in a chair coming up with his own idea that there's going to be something bad happening.
	He's actually hearing some stuff that he can't talk about.
	I'm not so sure I would go so far as to predict it, but we are in uncharted territories, at least since, oh, the Kennedy assassination.
	And I am one of the people who is convinced that that was an inside job and that our own government killed the president.
	And I don't think that you could rule that out.
	I don't predict it, but you definitely can't rule it out.
	In fact, you can't rule out any degree of illegal activity at this point.
	Because I think that there are people who will be fighting for their lives, literally, in terms of life in jail.
	People will be fighting for their lives.
	And they will see Trump as an existential threat to everything they've built in their life.
	So there is no limit to what people will do in that situation.
	So Trump, unfortunately, will be You know, cornering all the wild animals, or they'll feel cornered, even if they're not.
	So, things could get scary.
	But one thing that Trump might take off the table, and by the way, this could be an outlier, so don't get too excited until you see other polls backing it up.
	But, if he's up by 10 on election day, they can't cheat it away from him.
	That's just too much.
	10 is the magic number.
	This is one of those days where I feel like I'm authoring the simulation.
	I just called out that exact number, and here it is.
	Here it is.
	Anyway, we'll see if it stands up to other things.
	So, back to bad behavior by our government.
	Dershowitz points out that the funding is coming from some Rockefeller charitable fund, and the Soros people are funding the organizations that are doing the bad things.
	Now that doesn't mean that the people who are doing the funding are organizing it or that they are even aware of how their money is being spent.
	Would you agree?
	You're talking about billions of dollars being pumped into hundreds of organizations, they don't watch everyone to see everything they do.
	So we don't know for sure that anybody who is funding it is aware that their money directly or indirectly went into these protests.
	Thank you.
	But here's what we can say.
	Remember I said that the only reason the FBI isn't telling us every day and the news isn't telling us every day who's behind it is that it's coming from inside the house.
	The only explanation I can see That's why they don't have the FBI on TV every day saying, well, we've traced the funding in the organization, and here's who's behind it, and it's Iran.
	If it were Iran, you don't think you would have heard about it?
	If it were China, you don't think you'd know about that?
	I mean, even the TikTok suspicions are in the news.
	If it were Putin, if Putin were behind these protests, you don't think they'd mention that?
	Of course they would.
	What's the one thing they wouldn't be able to mention if they knew it?
	It's coming from the government.
	Now, here's what I think.
	At least the Soros group, and maybe the Rockefeller group too, aren't they the biggest funders of the Democratic Party?
	And isn't the Democratic Party kind of in charge of the government?
	So, could the government, which is the Democrats, throw their own funders under the bus?
	So, the news is owned by the Democrats, the government is owned by the Democrats, and the people who fund them are all on the same party.
	It's exactly what I told you it was.
	It's the Democrats.
	Now, I don't think the Democrats are doing it intentionally.
	I think that their largest funding sources created a bunch of sloppy money that's getting slopped in places that they would not have chosen it to slop.
	So I think it's accidental, but the only reason this isn't the only headline story is because it's the Democrats.
	The Democrat funders did it.
	The Democrat government isn't going to talk about it.
	The Democrat, you know, run government doesn't want to uncover it.
	It's exactly what it looks like.
	The people funding it are too close to being Democrats, because they fund the Democrats, that even if they didn't mean it, they can't tell the story.
	Now, would you agree that's the only explanation that fits the facts?
	Why would the FBI not tell you if they even suspected, even suspected, foreign involvement?
	They would tell you.
	They might tell you they don't know the details.
	They might say something got hacked, we don't know who, but we're looking into it.
	If it were coming from outside the country, you'd know about it.
	You know what else you would know?
	If it were coming from inside the country, from someone who is not aligned with the Democrats.
	If the white supremacists were doing this, you don't think that'd be a story?
	Seriously.
	If any Republican entity, in any way, Had a connection to the protesters.
	You don't think that'd be in the news every day?
	Every day.
	Of course it would.
	The only reason that the organizers and the funding are not the biggest story, because they're the ones driving it, right?
	The students are sort of irrelevant.
	They're the tail that got wagged by the dog.
	But the dog is being ignored.
	We're concentrating on the tail.
	The only reason It makes sense to concentrate on the tail instead of the dog, is that whoever's in charge of the news doesn't want you to know what the dog is.
	Oh, look at the tail.
	But what's it connected to?
	Look at the tail.
	But really, I'd know more about the tail if I knew something about the dog that was wagging it.
	There is no dog.
	There is no dog.
	It's just a tail.
	Really, there's no such thing as a just a tail.
	Oh, this time there is.
	Just a tail.
	Just a wagging tail.
	And that's basically what the public is being told.
	It's just a wagging tail.
	There's no dog.
	Of course you know the dog.
	Rutgers apparently gave in to their protesters' eight of ten demands.
	They were not going to divest, because that's too hard, divesting from every company that has anything to do with Israel.
	But they are going to do a whole bunch of things where they're going to bring some Gaza people in and give them scholarships and make sure that they have more anti-Jewish voices in there.
	Basically, Rutgers had to, I'm just, this is my own summary.
	So without getting into the details, Rutgers had to agree to be anti-Israel, basically.
	Now, nothing says that.
	That's Scott's interpretation.
	But if you look at the list of things they agreed to, it kind of adds up to you have to be anti-Israel.
	It looks like they agreed to it, basically.
	So Bill Ackman was being amazed by that, and then Jordan Peterson was Reminding him, Bill Ackman, Sir Jordan Peterson said, as I have suggested repeatedly, the situation at the universities is far worse than you imagine.
	The parasites and scavengers have taken over the whale carcasses and there is no way back.
	This is a foundational problem.
	No amount of whitewash will suffice to address the rot.
	Now that seems to be a very clear statement that the colleges are done.
	As entities that you can trust, and as a foundation of building our country, I believe Jordan Peterson says, forget it.
	You can't save them, they're already dead.
	That's how I read it.
	Now, who knows more about the situation in the colleges?
	Me, or Jordan Peterson?
	I'm gonna go with Jordan Peterson.
	This was not my opinion that it was unsavable.
	I kind of imagined it would sort of pendulum back to where it was.
	I just thought there'd be some pendulum thing.
	All right.
	So we'll see.
	Maybe he's right.
	I think AI will have made advanced education useless anyway.
	So I think the whole college experience was Probably going to transform radically in the next 10 years, no matter what happened in Israel.
	So probably this will accelerate it.
	Well, the head of Hezbollah has a message for everyone.
	And he says, quote, in the case of, well, in a different language, but here's the translation.
	In the case of homosexuality, from the first time, even if they were unmarried, they shall be killed.
	So, pretty much Hezbollah's opinion of homosexuality is similar to a horse trainer's view of a horse with a broken leg.
	Horse has broken leg.
	Shoot.
	Horse has cold.
	Shoot.
	This is a Gary Larson joke.
	Horse needs a haircut.
	Shoot.
	So that seems to be the Hezbollah view on homosexuality.
	It doesn't really matter if you're unmarried.
	It's funny that they have to put that clause in there.
	Am I to believe that it would be a cultural truth that if you're unmarried you can suck as many dicks as you want and you're clear?
	But once you get married you gotta put that behind you?
	Well, that seems to be what he's indicating.
	It's like, I just want to be clear.
	It's not okay, he would say, head of Hezbollah, it's not okay to be a homosexual even if you're single.
	Well, that's quite constraining.
	I thought I could be, but not according to Hezbollah.
	So, as others have pointed out, how many of the The wise protesters would be aware that if the people they're protesting for were to get everything they wanted, that everything they wanted would include killing the people that they protested with.
	How many do you think really understand that?
	Because it looks like they don't.
	It looks very much like they don't understand that.
	So...
	It seems like there's a Republican dirty trick that's just waiting to happen.
	I feel like somebody needs to create a fake organization of LGBTQ Democrats who are in favor of killing LGBT people because they're in favor of a religion that would, not a religion, but a branch of the extremists who would be in favor of that.
	Should be a way to To mock that more effectively.
	Because I just don't see that the social signaling people who are protesting would be okay with it if they understood it.
	They couldn't possibly understand it.
	Am I right?
	They couldn't possibly be aware of what they're doing.
	Which would not be that unusual.
	All right.
	In case you're wondering if the election will be rigged or attempted to be rigged, that will be answered with this.
	So it looks like they're going to have their first debate, the Commission on Presidential Debates.
	The first debate with Biden and Trump will be September 16th.
	September 16th.
	Did you know that that's after voting starts?
	In a lot of places, they have mail-in ballots.
	They're going to have the first debate.
	The first debate, after voting's already started.
	Now, don't you think that the debates are likely to go in favor of Trump?
	Don't we all expect that, you know, given Biden's degraded situation?
	And if you have the first debate after the voting starts, to me that's in the category of not even trying.
	You know what I mean?
	That doesn't look like you were trying to have any kind of a fair process.
	I mean, how hard is it to have the argument before the voting?
	No way to schedule that?
	Nobody can figure out how to make that work?
	Looks like our comments stopped working.
	I'm going to see if I can get the comments working again.
	I'm just going to reopen my app.
	This should work.
	Yep, that worked.
	All right, comments are back on Locals.
	Yeah, I mean, if Biden uses the teleprompter in the debates, that'd be funny.
	Anyway, so the very first thing looks rigged to me.
	Um, and even though the commission, I assume the commission has Republicans on it too, but how do they agree to this?
	Well, I was watching a, uh, a podcast by Chris Cuomo yesterday.
	And, uh, here's what I'm going to say about Chris Cuomo.
	If you saw him on CNN and what you know of him is his CNN show that he Got canned from.
	You don't know who he is, because I think on CNN he was, you know, sort of playing the CNN employee.
	But I can tell you that when he is unscripted, as he was in his podcast, he was just not interviewing anybody.
	He was just talking about his opinions.
	He, he's the, the best example I've seen of someone who does not support Trump, you know, says that directly.
	But he doesn't have TDS either.
	And it was actually fascinating to watch somebody who clearly doesn't have TDS, and I'll give you the examples of that in a moment, but he has an argument, you know, against Trump.
	I mean, I don't think he's a big Biden supporter.
	He just is not a big fan of Trump.
	And here are some of the things he said.
	He said, and I'm going to paraphrase, he didn't use these words, but the Stormy Daniels payment case, total bullshit.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Chris Cuomo said, no, that case is just vapors and air and bullshit.
	Those are my words, not his.
	But he gives it no credibility whatsoever.
	And then the case about the inflated assets, you know, where Trump said his assets were worth more to get the bank loans.
	Chris Cuomo says, with no caveats, no ifs or buts, Complete bullshit that all Trump was doing was normal stuff.
	There were no victims.
	That case was lawfare.
	Now, were you aware of that?
	That there's somebody who you would identify as, you know, a Democrat, I guess, and is completely objective about the fact that these cases are just lawfare and they're just bullshit?
	It was pretty refreshing.
	There was nothing in his presentation And you could see him giving air to both sides of the conversation.
	And I was really impressed.
	So I'm going to give you an unqualified endorsement that if you want to hear what an honest person sounds like talking about politics, I recommend it.
	His podcast.
	Very recommended.
	In fact, I can't even think of another person Besides Dershowitz.
	Dershowitz is a special case because he talks about the law, not just the politics.
	But it's the first time I've seen somebody who clearly didn't have any Trump derangement syndrome.
	Clearly did not.
	And yet he made a case.
	Fascinating.
	I recommend it.
	Trump did his Trumpy thing about the story about him falling asleep in court.
	And...
	And here's his statement on it.
	Now, I'm just going to read it in his own words, and you tell me, is there any other politician of any period, past or current, who could have done this?
	This is how he deals with your falling asleep in court, and I quote, Contrary to the fake news media, I don't fall asleep during the crooked DA's witch hunt.
	Especially not today.
	I simply close my beautiful blue eyes, sometimes, listen intensely, and take it all in.
	Nobody else can do that.
	That is unmatchable.
	Right there.
	That is unmatchable.
	Nobody else can do that.
	He just turned it into a joke, and it worked.
	That's it.
	And it's not even a joke, per se.
	It's more like his brand is so distinct that when he does things in character, that alone is entertaining.
	Because it's like Trump being in character.
	It's Trump being Trump.
	That's the show I want.
	The show I want to watch is Trump being Trump all day.
	Just go be you.
	Do your Trump stuff.
	And here's some Trump stuff.
	It's beautiful.
	It's just perfect.
	Well, here's a mini-theme for today, that everything's going Trump's way, especially the Rasmussen poll.
	Here's another example.
	So I guess Alvin Bragg's former prosecutor, this guy Mark Pomerantz, is being asked by Congress about his role because they're suspicious that the Republicans in Congress are suspicious that the lawfare against Trump is trumped up.
	And so the Manhattan D.A., Alvin Bragg's former prosecutor, was asked during the congressional investigation the following question, quote, Did you knowingly break any laws when investigating President Trump?
	Answer, I plead the fifth.
	Question, did you violate anyone's constitutional rights while investigating Trump?
	Answer, I plead the fifth.
	Et cetera.
	And he continued.
	Now, that feels guilty to me.
	To me, that sounds like somebody who knows that there could be evidence from some other source besides him that he broke some laws and that he violated the Constitution.
	Because otherwise, you would say, without any reservations, I did not break the law and I did not violate the Constitution.
	Now, the only reason you would take the Fifth in a—remember, this is not a court, this is just Congress—but he's under oath.
	He doesn't want to compound his crimes, presumably—I don't want to be a mind reader—but the impression it leaves—I'll just say it that way, because I don't know what he's thinking—I'll just say the impression it leaves is that he's guilty as hell and doesn't want to compound it by also lying to Congress.
	Because if later it's proven that he did know he was doing a crime, you know, there's a memo where he said something like, well, this is criminal, and then he did it anyway.
	If something like that exists, then he would be guilty of those crimes, but then he would also be guilty of lying about it to Congress.
	So to minimize his risk, he can't even say he didn't violate the Constitution, and he can't even say he didn't violate the law.
	This is exactly what it looks like.
	Now it could be.
	I'm going to give him a little bit of cover.
	It could be just standard lawyering.
	It could be that you'd never give anybody anything.
	And then they don't have anything to work with.
	So it could be that there's nothing there, but he doesn't want to create something out of nothing with a quote.
	So he just doesn't provide them any quotes.
	It just takes the energy out of it.
	But.
	I would say that the way it will be perceived politically is that it's exactly what it looks like, that he knowingly broke laws when investigating President Trump.
	We don't know that.
	We just know that his answer signals that.
	Could be misleading, though.
	Well, here's some other things that could help Trump.
	Paul Thacker is reporting.
	Got a long story on this.
	I couldn't get all the details because these stories tend to get complicated, but it's about, there used to be this Hamilton 68 dashboard, which was a Democrat plan to make it look like a bunch of people were talking to Russians.
	So, and it was fake.
	So the Hamilton 68 thing we know now was a fake attempt.
	To find a way that looked official so that you could blame Trump associates for talking to Russians.
	It was all fake.
	And we know that now.
	The evidence is uncontrovertible.
	Incontrovertible?
	So, let's see.
	The new news is that there's a whistleblower that was part of something called New Knowledge.
	That was a group.
	And that they knowingly created disinformation for the election and that their job was to create real information and get rid of disinformation, but the whistleblower soon found out that their real job legitimately and directly was to create disinformation.
	Now, unfortunately, this whole story about this Hamilton 68 thing is not only a little bit aged, Because it's several years ago, but it's also complicated because there are too many entities involved.
	But the bottom line is that your government and the, well, the Democrats, created a whole structure, not just this Hamilton 68, but a gigantic, massive structure of people who are supposed to get rid of disinformation whose real job was the opposite.
	To create disinformation so they can win elections.
	It's exactly what it looks like.
	And I say it again, our form of government is a criminal enterprise.
	I find it laughable that we're some kind of republic, or democratic republic, or federation of democratic states republic, or anything.
	We are just a criminal enterprise.
	Period.
	And I say it again, it might be the best form of government.
	Because whenever a democracy gets formed, and it's capitalist, I think it ends up being the money people control the information and control the country, and then it's just a criminal organization after that.
	So, the best argument that the Marxists could have is that all capitalists turns into a criminal organization.
	You know why they can't say that?
	Because the Democrats are in charge.
	So their own party, the ones that the protesters presumably would vote for if they voted, their own party would be an example of the criminals running the country.
	So, gotta be careful about that.
	So yes, we are in a disinformation, major, major Democrat disinformation environment, and I'll ask you this question.
	Are you aware of any even accusation against Republicans of having an organized, funded attempt for disinformation?
	Is there any stories I'm missing that would tell me this happens on both sides?
	Because I've only seen it on one.
	Now, not to say there's no disinformation on the right.
	There is.
	There's plenty.
	There's disinformation everywhere.
	But when I see disinformation from Republicans, or from the right in general, It always seems like it's honest, meaning that somebody actually believed it, and then other people came to believe it too.
	That's completely different than a funded organization whose mission is to create disinformation and get you to believe it.
	Very, very different.
	Now why is it that you suppose Democrats have to create disinformation and Republicans don't?
	Let me give you a simple explanation for that.
	Here's a Republican trying to explain their policy.
	Well, we like freedom of speech because it's the most important thing that underlines everything we do.
	Was that hard to understand?
	It was not.
	You totally understand that.
	We like capitalism because if you remove the incentives, then even though it sounds good, everything falls apart and nobody's ever made it work unless there were incentives.
	Do you understand that?
	Yes, you do.
	Easy to understand.
	Is any disinformation needed to sell capitalism?
	Not really.
	So the Republicans can sell their programs without any disinformation.
	There's disagreement about whether a fetus is a baby or not a baby yet, I guess.
	But those are also transparent disagreements.
	Nobody's trying to disinform anybody.
	It's just somebody has an opinion that's a baby, and somebody has an opinion that's not one.
	That's it.
	But, why do the Democrats, from top to bottom, think they need to create disinformation, not just entities, but an entire massive structure of disinformation?
	Why would that be?
	There's only one reason.
	Their policies and their ideas don't stand up to scrutiny.
	There is no other reason.
	If the shit they said made sense, they wouldn't need to battle any disinformation, which is really just creating their own disinformation.
	All they would do is just give their argument.
	All you do is say, we think this is a good idea, here's our reason why.
	But it all comes out sounding like Marxism, which doesn't have an argument that even anybody offers, as far as I can tell.
	A criticism of capitalism is not a plan.
	It's just agreeing with everybody who looks at capitalism.
	Yeah, that's a problem.
	Yeah, yeah, those CEOs do get paid too much.
	Uh-huh.
	Okay.
	It's not a plan.
	It's a nothing.
	So the reason that they need disinformation is they don't have anything to sell.
	Imagine trying to sell DEI.
	You can't sell that to voters.
	Voters would not vote for DEI, but do you know you can get it in corporations by threatening them?
	You can just put on, you know, the threats.
	Oh, you're a racist unless you have a DEI group.
	All right, we'll get one.
	So you can squeeze a corporation, but you wouldn't be able to squeeze the voters that way.
	So if let's say you made a law that, you know, every company had to have DEI.
	Voters wouldn't vote for that.
	Because the argument wouldn't be presented.
	What's the argument?
	We want to discriminate against white men?
	They're not going to vote for that.
	So disinformation is the only way you can sell terrible ideas, and it's exactly what it looks like.
	It's a whole bunch of terrible ideas that can't be sold, so they have to create a disinformation network.
	All right.
	Employment isn't as good as it was, so hiring pulled back.
	That's bad for Biden.
	Unemployment edged up 3.9%.
	That's bad for Biden.
	And here's a big surprise.
	You won't believe this.
	Can you believe that the February and March employment numbers, which were so good, in retrospect, got revised?
	Has that ever happened before?
	Has there ever been a government statistic that came out looking great, but then later, when you weren't paying attention, they revised it downwards?
	Yep, they just revised the February and March numbers 22,000 lower in terms of jobs added.
	Have you ever seen it revised the other direction?
	Everything is misinformation.
	Why did the Biden administration need to lie to you about the number of jobs and then carefully walk it back when you're not paying attention?
	Because if they told you the truth, you wouldn't like it.
	It's all the same story.
	The Democrats can't do the truth because it doesn't work.
	It just doesn't work.
	And they're obviously aware of it.
	It would be one thing if they didn't know.
	Like, what if they were just dumb, and they just thought they had good arguments, but they didn't know they were bad arguments?
	Well, they wouldn't act like this.
	The way they act is that they're completely aware that they don't have any arguments.
	And I say it again.
	It's real easy for Republicans to make arguments because they make sense.
	They say stuff like, well, the family unit is your best unit and all the data suggests it's true.
	Well, what are you going to say about that?
	Are you going to argue against that being true?
	All the data suggests it's true.
	So, if you don't have any data and not even any logic on your side, you've got to have a gigantic disinformation machine Which his first job is to tell you it's an information machine.
	So the first job of every disinformation is to convince you it's an information.
	All right.
	Apparently the phrase Bidenomics is going to go away because nobody likes it.
	Gallup poll said that their top kitchen table concern was inflation.
	So Bidenflation is Getting more play than Bidenomics.
	And Trump is going to make sure that you know that inflation is a tax.
	He's right about that, by the way.
	Inflation is a secret tax.
	But not in just a metaphor kind of way.
	It's an actual tax.
	Not in an analogy way or remind you of a tax.
	If the government spends money, They can pay for it one of two ways.
	They can tax you, and that is called a tax.
	Or they can borrow it, and then you're on the hook for paying it later.
	That's called a tax.
	It's both a tax.
	And if they use inflation to inflate it down so that they can afford to pay it back, well, the inflation is the tax.
	But anytime they take money, you know, they're going to have to pay it back somehow.
	So yeah, it's just a tax.
	So Trump is 100% right, you can call inflation a Biden tax.
	That is right on the nose.
	Congress, the Republicans of course, are calling in the NPR CEO to testify over allegations of all their left-wing bias.
	NPR is an example of one of the disinformation entities That knows it is a disinformation entity and is funded by the government.
	No, the government should not fund NPR to be a disinformation entity to work against the interests of the taxpayers.
	In fact, the government should put them out of business for the benefit of the taxpayers.
	You shouldn't pay them to fuck the taxpayers because that's what they're doing.
	I'm paying my taxes.
	Some of that's going to NPR.
	And then PR is lying to me intentionally.
	Intentionally.
	I mean, you could call it bias, but it's just lying.
	All right.
	General Flynn, whose new film is out.
	I haven't seen it yet, but I did buy it, so I'm going to watch it probably this weekend.
	But he predicts that the Biden administration is planning some kind of national emergency.
	Ahead of the 2024 election.
	And he says he's hearing rumors of it, so he's better connected than we are.
	So, is it true?
	Well, it's something to worry about, and it would be in character.
	It might be a little bit too on the nose, but it's certainly within the strike zone and the sweet spot of things that we've seen our government do before.
	If you believe that the CIA killed JFK, and I do, or at least they were part of the planning, it would not be surprising to see them do some insanely audacious thing of ginning up an emergency so they can influence the elections.
	But totally within the realm.
	Now, what's your best defense?
	Well, I would listen to a military general who had been trained in all of the ways of war, which presumably include information warfare.
	Do what he's doing.
	He's calling it out before it happens.
	That's your best play.
	So that when it does happen, we can all say, there it is, and treat it as the fake it will be.
	So just remember to tell everybody you know that you're expecting the Biden administration to do a national emergency to influence the elections.
	If it doesn't happen, you'll be called a conspiracy theorist.
	You can live with that.
	If it does happen, you can say, ah, ah, ah, we told you, this is the fake one.
	And then we have a much better chance of seeing it in its proper context.
	So Flynn is modeling what you should be doing, which is getting ahead of it.
	And even if it's not real, just put down some suppressive fire.
	Right?
	That's what he's doing.
	This is suppressive fire.
	So remember, he knows strategy.
	So I watch him because I'm looking for hints Of how I should be, right?
	Because he, presumably, is smarter strategically than any of us.
	He should be, right?
	He should have that specific training or he wouldn't be a general.
	So, watch that.
	All right, Matt Walsh had an opinion piece on this Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, which apparently got passed by the House and is going to the Senate for a vote.
	And the idea is that if you're doing some anti-Semitic speech, that it could be illegal, and you could be in trouble.
	Now, as Matt Walsh points out, the definition of what would be anti-Semitism is not in the law.
	But the law refers to an organization that would be sort of the source of determining whether it was anti-Semitic or not.
	That source is not an American source.
	It's somebody called the Holocaust Alliance.
	So a non-American group would be in charge of saying what was anti-Semitic, what kind of message.
	So let's say, for example, you doubted some element of the Holocaust.
	Maybe you didn't doubt the whole Holocaust, but let's say you had some suspicion about some part of it.
	If this group said that's anti-Semitic, Then you would be in violation of the law, and presumably you could be jailed.
	Would this be a jailable offense?
	Does anybody know?
	So, now take my situation, shall we?
	Are you aware that the ADL said in public, publicly, accused me of being a Holocaust denier?
	The ADL accused me of being a Holocaust denier.
	Now, if this foreign group, the Holocaust Alliance group, if they said that if you're a Holocaust denier, you've broken this law, then I go to jail, because the ADL accused me of something that didn't happen.
	And somebody else can define that as good enough for me to go to jail.
	Do you know what I think about this?
	I want to know the full list of what I'm not supposed to fucking say.
	And I'm going to say everything on that fucking list every day.
	Tell me, give me the list.
	Give me the fucking list of what I'm not supposed to say about Israel, about what I'm not supposed to say about Jews.
	And you make that illegal?
	I'm going to say it every fucking day.
	And I am anti-Israel, period.
	I am fucking anti-Israel.
	Because the ADL, I know the ADL doesn't work for Israel, but if Israel doesn't shut their fucking dog down, which is the ADL, their little attack dog, they can shut them down tomorrow.
	Shut them the fuck down.
	I can't have the ADL and this law at the same time.
	I cannot have the ADL in business, accusing people of being Holocaust deniers, with this particular system.
	Fuck Israel.
	Fuck Israel.
	Fuck the ADL.
	I love the Jews.
	Let me be quite clear about that.
	I love the Jews.
	I love the Jewish people.
	Love Israelis.
	Love American Jews.
	This can't stand.
	If you want to make me fucking hate the people you want me to like, keep doing this.
	Keep telling me you're going to put me in fucking jail for my opinion.
	In this case, an opinion I didn't even hold.
	You motherfuckers.
	And by the way, if somebody votes for this, I need the whole list of anybody in the Senate who votes for this.
	I want to know if there's any fucking Republican who votes for this.
	If you're a Republican in the Senate and you vote for this, you're my enemy.
	I will try to do everything I can to get you out of office.
	I will defame you in every fucking way I can figure out how to do it.
	I will figure out who your opponents are and I'll help fund them.
	I will vote for a Democrat over you.
	If you're a Republican and you let this get passed, fuck you, you're dead to me.
	You're dead to me.
	You are my enemy, mortal enemy.
	And by the way, I'm fighting to stay in a jail.
	You don't think I'm going to put some energy into this?
	Fuck you.
	Every one of you.
	No, this law, if this becomes a law, I'm not going to act the same.
	All right?
	So just make it clear.
	I'd like to see Israel come out against this law.
	Now, it's none of their business because it's American law, but I'd love to see them say, you know, we don't love seeing the First Amendment being eroded in the United States.
	Don't love it.
	I'd love to see that.
	I'd love to see Israel say, You know, this is sort of dangerous because the ADL doesn't work for us, but they do like to blame people for being anti-Semitic, and you're kind of creating a situation here that's suboptimal for your own benefit.
	I'd love to see that.
	But no, don't ask me to back Israel.
	Don't ask me to support them.
	Don't ask me to do anything.
	Don't ask me for anything.
	If you're gonna set me up as your next sacrificial victim, and this looks like just a setup.
	I mean, don't be a fucking idiot, Republicans.
	Don't be pussies.
	If the only reason you're voting for this is you're afraid of the Jews, well, you're gonna have a new thing to be afraid of, because I'm gonna be way worse than Jews.
	I don't know who it is you think you're protecting, but I'm gonna make sure I'm worse than that.
	No, this is war.
	Yeah, this is a personal attack.
	This is not politics.
	This is me personally being threatened with jail for something I haven't done.
	So no, there's no limit to what I'm gonna do.
	Legally, of course, I won't break any laws.
	But there's no limit to how much energy I'm gonna put into fucking anybody who's in favor of this.
	So.
	Anyway, there's that.
	Meanwhile, a new poll says that A new ABC News Ipsos poll says that support in America for Israel is dropping.
	So nearly 4 in 10 Americans in a new ABC News Ipsos poll say the United States is doing too much to support Israel in its war with Hamas.
	Now that was up from 3 in 10.
	So 40% of Americans say we're doing too much to help Israel.
	And I would say that this new law, although it's not directly to help Israel, is just one of the things that will make people hate fucking Israel.
	So if your idea is to make people go from 4 in 10 to 6 in 10, this'll do it.
	This law will do it.
	Yeah.
	We don't need a fucking anti-Semitism law.
	We need to Maybe enforce the laws we have, because as far as I know, there's not one group that's the one that gets the hate speech.
	If you're going to give me an anti-Semitism law before you give an anti-white man law, because white men are getting knocked around too.
	You're just going to pick one group, and you're going to make them the special ones.
	And there's special language you can't use against the one group.
	No!
	Absolutely fucking not.
	Yeah, you're gonna lose everything.
	All right, Columbia Law School.
	The Columbia Law School Review Admin Board of Student Editors, they're asking the school to cancel exams and give these students all passing grades because the students were irrevocably, irrevocably shaken.
	And they also blamed white supremacists and neo-fascist hate groups in part for their problems.
	That's right.
	It was the white supremacists who caused them to Protests?
	Or something?
	It's like they have to throw in white supremacists to every complaint.
	And the white supremacists, too.
	We haven't found any, but we're pretty sure that Patriot Front... There's so few white supremacists that the government had to actually create a fake group.
	Really?
	I mean, that's what it looks like.
	It looks like our government created a fake hate group called the Patriot Front because they couldn't find any real ones, and their entire message was about all the real ones being the problem.
	I think that's what happened.
	Am I wrong?
	You don't think that our government, or some members of it, created a fake white supremacist group because they couldn't find a real one?
	That did happen.
	I'm pretty sure that's really what happened.
	Anyway, anybody who gets a law degree from the Columbia Law School in this environment is going to have to deal with the fact that they just spent a quarter of a million dollars and they got a Hamas degree, because it's going to look like you got the Hamas degree.
	Hey, applicant from Harvard, so you got that Hamas degree?
	No, Harvard.
	Okay.
	What year did you graduate?
	2024.
	So it's a Hamas degree.
	No, it's Harvard.
	Hmm.
	I watched the news.
	Seems like a Hamas degree to me.
	Yeah, they're going to have a lot to explain.
	Anyway, ladies and gentlemen, that is my show for today.
	Let's watch that anti-Semitism bill in the Senate.
	When are they going to debate that?
	Does anybody know?
	Because I really need the names of anybody who votes for that.
	If you're a Republican and you vote for that thing, you've got a political self-destruct button right on you.
	All right.
	Yeah.
	Lamas University degree.
	All right, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to try to talk to the locals people separately.
	Thanks for joining on X and on YouTube.
	Rumble might stay with us.
	So we've got a new option here.
	So we're going to see what happens.
	But see you tomorrow.
	Same time, same place.

▲