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, U.S. Debt Crisis, ESG Companies, Larry Fink, Flynn Movie, General Flynn, Fentanyl Deaths, Election Day Vote Counting, Hurr's Biden Report, Biden Gaslighting Strategy, Senator Booker Gaslighting, Charles Payne, Mark Cuban Economy Spin, President Biden Dishonesty, Ayanna Pressley, EU Migration Rules, Slovakakian PM Fico, RFK Jr. Debate Inclusion, Biden's Debate Strategy, Jake Tapper, Envy-Based Radicalization, Alcohol is Poison, 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
I'd like to take it up to levels that you won't even really be able to explain to your grandkids.
All you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass of tangerine shells, a sign, a canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee!
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine.
At the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better, it's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens right now.
go. I see we have a visitor from Canada.
Watching today, a visitor from Canada.
Congratulations, I don't know how you escaped.
Don't go back.
Don't go back.
All right, well, we got news today.
Theme of the show today will be that we have entered the serious gaslighting phase.
Serious gaslighting phase.
Oh, not just the ordinary gaslighting.
We're getting into the serious gaslighting phase.
Why is this doing that?
Weird.
All right.
You know, America gets kind of a lot of criticisms for things we do internationally, but there is one thing we do.
That's going to drive you crazy, why that looks like that on the side.
Why is this happening today, but it's never happened before?
What would be causing that to happen?
Can't really figure that out There's some weird lighting effect that has never happened before.
It's really driving me crazy though.
There we go.
All right.
Well, that's better.
All right.
We're in good shape now.
So I was saying that America gets a bad reputation for some of the things we do, but here's a report that this should change how you feel about Americans.
Yeah, if you happen to be American, and I'm not talking to you Canadians, but if you happen to be American, this should make you a little bit proud.
This is a report from Unusual Whales on X, and Unusual Whales tells us that the company Called Novo Nordisk, the maker of Ozempic and Wigovi, is now Europe's most valuable company, according to Bloomberg.
All right.
All right.
The company that makes that fat loss thing, Ozempic, the biggest, most valuable company in Europe.
Good job.
Now that is how America makes Europe great.
We are going to keep eating until Europe is the best, richest place in the world.
Now, do we get credit for that?
No.
Everybody just says, oh, you Americans, you're just fat and loud and poorly dressed and you keep attacking countries for no reason except to make money.
And I say, well, that may be true.
But have you considered how rich we're making a European company?
Have you?
I think that's got to be factored into our good works.
Yeah, if there's anybody else who would like me to eat until you're richer, I'll do it.
I'll sacrifice for you.
I'll get as fat as I need to be until you're rich.
Well, Jamie Dimon, our most famous banker in America, thinks we should be dealing with our debt issue, because if we don't, it will be Far more uncomfortable in the future.
Far more uncomfortable.
Hmm.
Are there other things that are fatal to all of civilization that we speak of in such soft terms?
Well, the debt will probably destroy the United States and cause a A ripple domino effect that will destroy really all life and civilization forever before we get to Mars and have a chance of survival.
But the way Jamie Dimon phrases that is, it could be far more uncomfortable in the future.
Possibly.
Now, here's the question that scares the shit out of me.
I don't know about you, but In my opinion, it seems obvious that our debt problem is the biggest problem.
Would we all agree with that?
There's nothing on the same level as that, right?
We don't really have a risk of a nuclear war.
Not really.
We're not really going to burn up from climate change anytime soon.
Maybe it'll just make the plants grow better.
I don't know.
But our debt situation, Is quite literally, you know, no joke, the end of civilization.
Because when the economy breaks, it's not going to fix itself.
It's just going to be broken.
What are you going to do?
You have to start over.
So when I see, here's the thing that scares me.
There's no serious person who's suggesting a way to fix it.
Now, I've never seen that before.
Every other problem has somebody whose job it is, you know, somebody gets rich usually, suggesting a way to fix it.
Like, oh, you can fix climate change if you just build lots of solar panels and windmills.
Now, you could argue whether that would work or not work, but you can't argue that somebody is suggesting it's your solution.
And you can go write down every other problem.
It's like, what's the solution to Ukraine?
Well, some people would say, fight harder.
Some people would say, pull out.
But those would be actual recommendations.
Those would be suggestions.
But you do realize that there's nobody serious who has even put forth an idea for solving the debt problem.
Nothing.
Not Trump, not Biden, not their advisors, not the pundits, not the bankers, not Larry Fink, you know, not BlackRock.
Why is that?
And I hate to tell you, but the only reason I can think that nobody is suggesting a solution is because there isn't one.
I don't know if a solution would even look like anything but stupid.
So when I mentioned it, a number of people said, okay, how about this?
How about that?
But the things they suggested, they don't realize that we're so far beyond where those things would make a difference.
For example, I saw a good suggestion, just moments before I got on here, that if you're going to give money to other countries, you should at least ask them to pay back the interest for the money that we borrowed.
Now I say to myself, oh, That's not a bad idea, except we're only giving money to people who don't have money, so I don't know how that'd work.
But suppose they did.
Suppose they started paying us interest on some monies that we gave to other countries.
That would be like 0.0001% of our debt.
It wouldn't make any difference.
What if some other people said, oh, we should cut spending 10%?
That wouldn't make any difference.
That doesn't get you anywhere near survival.
It would make a difference to the number, but it wouldn't help you.
You'd still be dead.
So there actually isn't any solution that any serious person has ever suggested.
I don't have any other way to interpret that other than we're just going to ride it to the end.
And it's going to come pretty soon.
How else do you interpret it?
I mean, I hate to be all doom and gloom, but I don't see any other way to see it.
Do you?
Tell me a reason I should be optimistic.
I can't think of one.
And worse, I think that Trump will come in to what looks like an impossible-to-solve problem.
It might have to get a lot worse before anything can get better.
Now, here's what I think could save us.
I just saw a Bill Pulte post replying to one of mine.
And he asked me if the Adams Law of slow-moving disasters applies.
And the answer is, it should.
But normally by now you'd at least see some hints of what that solution would look like.
I'm not seeing any.
I haven't seen anything that's even a whiff of a suggestion of a hint.
That anybody has any idea what to do.
So the only thing I can think of is that we're on the cusp of a enormous economic upheaval, where all the rules will change.
You know, we're one year from people like me having a robot in the house, like an actual robot.
In one year, if I'm still doing this, there will be a robot standing behind me.
You know that's true, right?
There will be an actual robot living in my house in one year.
Now, what's that going to do to the economy?
I don't know.
Nobody knows.
But the stimulating effect will be like something we've never seen before.
So it could be that there's some clever way we introduce some digital currency that you hate, and something about new industries, and something about getting people to live cheaper.
In my opinion, the only way this can be solved is by building cities from scratch.
And they would be specialized cities.
You ready for this idea?
Biggest idea you've ever heard of.
What are you going to do with all the homeless?
You cannot put them in the city with everybody else and just say, hey, how about you live on the sidewalk?
Nope.
How about you build an agrarian Um, city, I'll call it a, you know, it's rural, so it's not a city, a, an agrarian town.
And you say, everybody who works, who lives here will get a cheap place to live because we'll build it cheap, but you have to work in the fields.
So you have to actually do some farming that way.
It's a job that everybody can do.
Did you ever, do you ever wonder why it was that we didn't have so much homeless in the past?
Cause we must've had mental health.
And we certainly had lots of alcoholics.
I don't know the answer to that, but I think the answer is that they could get jobs in the past.
I think you could be, you know, a total alcoholic.
And if you showed up to pick the cotton or to lift the bricks or to carry the ice somewhere, that's all you needed.
You could just sort of show up and have muscles and you could do your job.
So I think we would need to build entire communities.
Where the people who can't do anything, except maybe show up sometimes and carry some stuff, can't have a job.
So I don't think that you can mix the people who are living on the streets, you know, with Jamie Dimon and Larry Fink and me.
It just doesn't work.
But you could, one could imagine, build a community that was self-sustaining, paid for itself, had almost no energy costs, And you could cycle people in who are in a bad situation, and they'd have a place to live cheaply and with a, you know, dignity and stuff.
So I don't believe we should try to incorporate the homeless, the drug addicts, the mentally incapable, with the rest of other people.
It just can't work.
You've got to build them their whole new community that's just for people like them.
We probably need communities that are just for addicts.
Where you can't get any drugs in.
But it's a nice town.
Just impossible to get anything into it.
And I think that we need to build towns from scratch where the ordinary cost of living for a young person would be almost nothing.
Imagine, if you will, that you're a 20-something and you're looking at the impossibility of buying a house.
But I say to you, hey, Trump's building a new city And he's going to try to attract a lot of young people.
So let's say that's a theme, uh, young, uh, baby making age people.
And if you go there, there'll be tons of people who are single and about your age, and all of them are in similar situations and you'll build this community together.
And, uh, you'll be able to afford to live there because the homes will be so cheap and the energy will be free and you won't need a car and wifi will be everywhere.
So you could build, you could build $1,000 a month lives that would be high quality.
So that's my suggestion is building cities from scratch, except each city should be built around a theme.
It might be one for retirees, one for drug addicts, one for people who can't do any kind of work, but carry stuff.
And another for people who want to build a, let's say a high tech life and have some kids.
And I think that's the way we're going to get out of this.
There's some pressure on BlackRock's Larry Fink to not get paid because of his screwing the pooch with ESG.
Now, I doubt that'll succeed, but imagine you're Larry Fink and there's a very large movement that you should not get paid a penny.
You shouldn't get paid at all.
Now, and apparently the movement to not pay It's pretty big.
But is that the only thing happening with ESG?
No, it's not.
It turns out there's an opinion article in the Wall Street Journal.
And I didn't know about this, but this is hilarious.
If you're following ESG, the equity, social governance, whatever it is, trying to be good people, ESG, people like BlackRock created lists Of companies who are bad at ESG, so that they can be damned and criticized?
And do you know what the counter to that is?
This is so cool.
There's actually a list now of ESG idiot companies.
ESG idiots.
People who are implementing ESG and they get a grade.
And the more, the more ESG they've implemented, the worse their grade.
So, you know, you can only get out, you can only get a good grade by ignoring as much ESG as possible.
And so it's an idiot list.
They actually made an idiot list for a company who's doing ESG.
Perfect.
Now you worry about the slippery slope.
People always criticize me because I say the slippery slope isn't real.
But I think people misinterpret what I mean by that.
When I say it's not real, Of course I'm not saying that some things don't keep going in one direction, and you wish they hadn't.
Because we observe that.
That's obviously true.
What I'm saying is that if you say it's a slippery slope, you've described the problem in a way that there's no solution.
And I don't like that.
So I say don't do that.
Instead say, everything goes in the direction it's going.
Everything.
Everything good, everything bad.
Until something stops it.
So it's the, until something stops it, that is the part that gives you something you can do.
Oh, well, maybe we should do something to stop it.
That's the way you should think about it and talk about it.
So when I see that the ESG was becoming this huge toxic thing, I didn't say to myself, well, it looks like it's ESG forever and it'll just get worse until we're all dead.
No, I said, there'll be some counter force that will pop up.
And here it is.
Now there's the list against the list.
There's an ESG hero list and an ESG idiot list, and it's the same companies on both.
I love that there's a hero list and an idiot list that's the same list.
Here's the ones doing the most ESG.
Yeah, that's our list.
Except we call them idiots because they're screwing their shareholders.
Anyway, so there are reports that the zeal for ESG is falling off.
Well, last night I watched the Flynn documentary.
How many of you have seen it?
General Flynn.
It's his story about the government targeting him in the Trump era.
Let me recommend it highly.
I recommend it highly.
Um, a lot of it is, you know, character stuff about his family and, you know, just how bad things were when he was being abused by our government.
But I feel like that was necessary.
Um, it was important for you to see that there was a real human being at the bottom of this badness.
And I'll give you the summary.
I don't want to ruin it for you, but it's way better than I thought.
And when I say way better, I don't mean just that it was well produced, which it was, um, but it just makes your brain go buh, buh, buh, buh, buh, buh, buh, buh, buh.
Really?
Did this really happen in America?
I'll just give you the quick version of it.
It would appear now, keep in mind, uh, you know, somebody is going to say this before I say it, but it's a documentary.
You do know that I say often the what I call the documentary effect means that when you're done, you will be completely convinced that the documentary told you the truth and there's nothing left to know.
But if there were another documentary, it might change your mind because all documentaries are persuasive.
So was this documentary persuasive?
Yes, it was.
Wow.
Super, super persuasive.
Could somebody have a counter argument?
Some other context that I'm not aware of?
Yes, they could.
But like all documentaries, if you've only seen one, I really can't imagine it.
Like literally, my brain can't imagine what the counter-argument would be.
But of course, that's the trap.
The trap is that you can never imagine what the counter-argument would be if you haven't heard it.
So as far as I know, and I've never seen it in any other context, there is no counter-argument.
As far as I know, the documentary tells you exactly what happened.
I've never seen anything that would refute it.
But let me give you the big picture.
So the big picture is that General Flynn was considered the most respected expert in the, let's say, military intelligence field.
And he worked well with Trump.
And here's the part you didn't know.
Tell me if you knew this.
Flynn's a Democrat, and has always been one.
Did you know that?
Did you know that Flynn was a Democrat?
And always was.
His whole family's Democrats.
Always have been.
Described themselves as Kennedy Democrats.
Now you might ask yourself, why was he willing to work with Trump?
Isn't that weird?
Well, it turns out they had one common interest.
I bet you didn't know this.
The common interest was, according to Flynn, this is his view of the world, for the last 59 years, the United States has been creating unnecessary wars for profit, and he wanted to stop it.
And he would have had the power to do it.
He would have known where all the bodies were hidden, so to speak, you know, how everything works.
And Trump had appointed him to what would have been the head of all of it.
He would have been the head of all the intel, everything.
And in his opinion, the military-industrial complex is the only reason we're having war after war after war, and that he saw it firsthand in Afghanistan, for example, and he wasn't going to put up with it, and he was just going to gut it.
He was going to gut the military-industrial complex with Trump.
Why?
Because he's not just a Democrat, it turns out.
He's a patriot.
And as a patriot, and as someone who swore allegiance to the country, he realized the only way he could live out that duty was to coordinate with Trump, because Trump had a similar interest in taking down the swamp.
But what happened instead?
The swamp took him out.
It's exactly what you think.
He was taken out with trumped up charges by the worst people in the government.
And every bit of it was just to get rid of him so he couldn't gut the government's illegal criminal activities that they've been doing for 59 years.
It's exactly what you thought it was.
And worse.
I didn't realize that he was going to dismantle the people who dismantled him.
I didn't realize it was that direct.
I always thought it was like, well, you know, People don't like anybody who's working with Trump.
I thought it was more of a generic, if they can get to any Trump people, they would.
It had nothing to do with what he was going to do per se.
It was just, he's a Trump guy.
We're going to go after all the Trump guys.
It's all the same.
It's just this.
It's just the military industrial complex intelligence people gathering up to stop Trump and to stop him because Trump And, um, yeah.
So Trump and Flynn were uncorruptible.
That was the problem.
They were uncorruptible.
Now, I'm not going to say that, you know, they're, they're the holiest people and, you know, they're on the side of the angels.
I'm just going to say that Flynn does seem to be apparently a pure patriot.
Like every indication is just that.
Trump simply didn't have an interest, you know, any monetary interest in being part of the military industrial complex.
So for him, what would be a good job for Trump, which would be a good job for the country, would be to shave that down a little bit.
And that's why they came for him.
So once you see the, the, uh, the evil that came after Flynn and you see the characters involved, it's the same people who went after Trump.
And it had nothing to do with what Trump did, or what Flynn did in terms of illegal behavior, wasn't it?
It was entirely to keep the profit pump working.
It's exactly what you thought it was.
So I highly recommend it, not only because it's really eye-opening, but, and by the way, you do know that the bad people threatened to put his son in jail over probably nothing.
And that he pled guilty just to keep his son out of jail, and there really wasn't any other choice.
I mean, he was screwed harder than I've seen any American ever screwed.
I mean, you know, Peter Navarro is still in prison.
An election's coming.
Peter Navarro is still in prison, a political prisoner.
We all know that.
It's just political prisoner.
An election's coming.
Act appropriately.
All right.
Marjorie Taylor Greene is saying that, you know, she's speaking out again, as she has oftentimes, about the fentanyl deaths.
So between 2019 and 2022, the Georgia fentanyl deaths, because that's your state, have increased over 350%.
So from the time I started complaining about it in 2018, when my stepson died from an overdose, from that time, all the complaining I've done, and all the things people have said, it's up 350%.
How many people is that?
It's 300 Americans every day are killed.
300 Americans every day are killed.
300 Americans every day.
Now do you remember there were some reports that say that Trump was considering sending special forces in to take out the cartels?
Yeah.
And you know, my opinion is that it seems quite obvious to me at this point that the cartels are working with the same bad people who got rid of Flynn and are trying to get rid of Trump.
Is that fair?
Because they do seem to have the power, and if they want to stop it, they have the ability.
The only way you can interpret our current situation is that the baddest people are working with the cartels, either to share money or because they have some common interest in controlling the countries south of our border.
Now, we've been told that it's probably, I think the Mike Ben's opinion is that it has more to do with controlling the other governments, because the cartels are so powerful everywhere, that partnering with the governments would be a little bit helpful.
But it would be way more helpful if we partnered with the people really in power, the cartels.
Now, how do you explain that if we're working productively, the American country, with the cartels, how does that make sense with the fact that we heard a story that Trump might want to go in militarily against the cartels?
The only way that makes sense is exactly what it looks like.
The people in power are not telling Trump what the real situation is.
And I believe he does not know that the cartels are our people, because the deepest part of the deep state knows, and they're not going to tell him.
And I think that's the only reason he would suggest military action is he doesn't know that this has all been, it's all fixed, that they're not really our enemies in the sense that The darkest part of our country is working with them.
They're basically us.
It's coming from inside the house.
How else would you explain it?
How else would you explain that no one else has ever talked?
Well, let me put it in another, more starkly.
Everybody who might have ever been, let's say, briefed on the real situation does not suggest military action.
The one person we know From lots of reports, the intelligence people have said directly, there are things we're not going to tell Trump.
How do you explain that the only person that we know hasn't been briefed on the situation is the only one in favor of military action?
There's only one way to explain that.
He's the only one who doesn't know the truth.
And the people who know the truth have told us directly, we don't think we can tell him the truth.
They've said that in public.
I'm not speculating.
They say it right out loud.
We don't think we can tell Trump the real truth.
So I think that's the whole story.
I think Trump is not aware that they're on our team.
I mean, in the worst possible way, they're on our team.
Now, would I think that if I had not seen the Flynn documentary?
Well, I'll tell you, after you see the Flynn documentary, everything's on the table.
Because if you see what they're doing to Trump right in front of your fucking face, the lawfare, and then you see the Flynn documentary, and because it was Flynn, not Trump, he didn't get nearly as much light on his situation.
It's the same situation.
It's the same people and the same situation.
And if these are happening right in front of us, you have to ask yourself, what else could they do?
We're pretty sure the same people or the legacy of these same people killed Kennedy.
Don't we?
I mean, a lot of us think that.
I think that's the likely scenario that they're released in on it.
Might've been other interests like the mafia, but I think our people were in on it.
So if you think that's true, what are the odds that the elections are not rigged?
I mean, seriously, what are the odds that our elections are fair?
Given what we saw with Flynn, given what we're watching right now with Trump, given what we think happened to Kennedy, given what might have happened to Nixon, Given that there's a suspicious number of CIA people on the Atlantic Council that uses Soros as a bank, I think every bit of this is real.
There was a time I wouldn't have believed any of it.
But the things you can observe and are, you know, clearly, verifiably true, suggest that the zone of badness is way bigger than you could have imagined, and that it's all possible.
I'm not saying it's all true, every allegation of badness, but it's all possible.
None of it can be ruled out for, well, that's too wild.
I saw in the comments, somebody saying, what about the moon hoax?
I don't know.
I think the moon landing was real, but if you told me it's impossible that they hoaxed it, I would say, no, it's possible.
If you need me to say it's possible.
Oh yeah.
Oh yeah, it's possible.
I would bet against it.
I would bet it was real.
But is it possible?
Absolutely.
Totally possible.
And I wouldn't have said that a while ago.
Well, last week, Rasmussen is telling us this, Rasmussen Polling Company, that Georgia Governor Brian Kemp signed a new law that requires all absentee ballots to be counted within an hour of the polls closing on Election Day.
Now, isn't that a good idea?
Because you're supposed to have all the ballots in on election day, or they shouldn't be counted if it's after election day.
And the longer you wait, the longer some suspicious thing might happen.
So that's a rule that we could all agree on, right?
Who in the world would be against that?
I mean, nobody could be against that.
Well, it's so obviously a good idea, right?
So pretty much 100% of people will be in favor of that, I would think.
So let's see if you can guess what percentage are opposed to it.
Anybody want to take a guess?
What percentage of the people polled are opposed to counting all the votes on election day?
What do you think that would be?
If you guessed 26%, you would be correct.
There is no question dumb enough that you won't get 25% of the people roughly to get the wrong answer.
That's right.
A quarter of the people polled thought that you should be able to count the votes after election day.
How is that even a question?
How are we even asking the question?
It's election day.
It's not election week.
It's not election month.
It's election day.
Because we want it to be one day, because it works better if it's one day.
If you drag it out, it's only for fuckery.
There isn't another reason to drag it out.
There's no justification for not doing this.
But you can always get that solid one quarter of the public to be in favor of anything.
Well, do you remember that, uh, the Her Report where, uh, Where her, H-U-R-R, said that Biden was dementia riddled, not his exact words, but he was a quivering pile of mental destruction and debris and there was nothing left.
He didn't use any of those words.
I'm putting words in his mouth.
But he said that Biden was an old feeble man, essentially.
And of course, the Republicans said, oh, wouldn't it be nice to have a recording of that?
Just find out how bad it was.
Imagine how bad it was that her thought it was necessary to tell us.
Just think about that.
In the context of a legal situation, is it ever necessary to tell you that, oh, by the way, this person seems to be mentally incompetent?
It's usually not important, right?
If you're just looking at the details of some criminal allegation.
But he thought that was important enough that we needed to know.
So how bad is it?
Well, it's bad enough that Biden is invoking executive privilege to not release it.
Just imagine that.
That there's a recording he had with a, you know, let's say, would it be an officer of the government or the court?
I don't know what you'd call him.
But, you know, an official kind of person.
So it's not like a personal conversation, right?
It's a conversation he knew was being recorded and that he did, I would say, within his official capacity, which should make it available to us, right?
Unless it's, unless there's like a secret involved.
But he's invoking executive privilege.
I don't know if it applies.
Maybe it does.
I don't think we necessarily need to hear it.
Do you?
And I would agree with the White House's interpretation that it's being requested for political reasons, not for any business.
I think that's fair.
Right.
I'd like to hear it, but I, weirdly, I'm going to back, I'm going to back the White House on this one.
I think the executive privilege, I feel like that needs to be strong.
You know, I say the same thing with Trump.
Say the same thing about anything with Trump.
I think executive privilege needs to stay strong.
And I think it's funny that he's invoking it in this situation.
But it's not really going to prevent us from knowing what we need to know.
It's not really going to cripple us in any way as a country.
So I'm okay with it.
Believe it or not, I'm okay with it.
So I'm not going to just reflexively say, Biden bad and everything else good.
Yeah, I'd say let him have his secret because is it really a secret?
Do you really need to know?
He said he's going to do a debate.
All questions will be answered in the debate.
Well, there's a report that food prices fell on the whole in April for the first time in 12 months.
Do you believe that?
That's according to the data released by the Labor Department.
A department of the government releasing data about the economy in a presidential campaign year, and it seems to suggest something opposite of what we're experiencing.
It's almost like the government makes up shit in an election year.
Yeah, don't believe it.
I don't know if it's false.
I'm saying that a government economic data in an election year has no credibility whatsoever.
No credibility whatsoever.
Well, Peter Navarro was not a president.
Yeah.
I'm hearing you say Peter Navarro was not allowed executive privilege, but I'm not, I'm not going to do the, you know, you did it to me, so got to do it to him kind of thing.
I'm still going to call balls and strikes.
Peter Navarro needs to be free and Biden has dementia and, uh, but we can still keep, you know, executive privilege.
Well, and then there was Senator Cory Booker.
Now, this gets to my theme of gaslighting.
I think we've left a field where all politicians lie.
Because that's just baseline, right?
Baseline, Trump gives a rally speech, CNN's going to find 26 things to complain about in the fact check.
If we looked at all of them, we'd say, oh, OK, I see why you're fact checking that.
But directionally, it's true, right?
So when Trump lies, it's almost always directionally correct.
In other words, if he says there's crime coming across the border, there is.
Directionally, he's correct, you know?
So we've reached, but we've reached this point Where the gaslighting, which is different from lying, lying is just saying something that isn't true.
Gaslighting is looking right in your face and telling you something isn't true when you can see for yourself it's true.
That's completely different.
So gaslighting is not just about not being true.
It's about telling you something is not true when you can see it's true.
You can see it yourself.
It's obviously true.
And they just say, no, you're not seeing it.
Um, this cat has no head.
Well, I'm looking at a cat.
I see it has a head.
No, it doesn't.
I'm looking at a cat right in front of me.
The same cat you're looking at.
We're talking about the same cat?
Yep.
The cat has a head.
It's meowing.
No, it's not.
How do you explain the meowing if the cat has no head?
Maybe you're imagining it.
I'm not imagining it!
There's a cat right in front of me!
There's a cat right in front of me!
So gaslighting is different because it actually makes you doubt your sanity.
If you've never had it happen to you, trust me, you can't understand it.
It cannot be explained to someone who's not experienced it.
But as a nation, we're about to experience it together.
Because Biden is just going to tell you That the economy is opposite of what you're observing.
Apparently that's the plan.
To just tell you, you don't see that.
What inflation?
Inflation?
I solved that a long time ago.
What do you mean inflation?
I don't know what you're talking about.
Are you sure you're okay?
Are you off your meds?
I'm worried about you.
Maybe you should see somebody professional if you think the economy or the inflation is high.
I'm a little bit worried about you if you think inflation is high.
Yeah.
Possibly it's the meds you're taking.
Have you gotten enough sleep?
So that's how gaslighting works.
It's not about the facts.
It's about the person you're talking to and making them crazy.
And we're pretty close to crazy now.
So Senator Cory Booker said this in the Post.
He said, Now that's something that a U.S.
60% since its peak, and core inflation is at its lowest level in three years.
The president's economic policies are strengthening our economy and reducing costs for American families.
There's more to be done.
Let's move toward an economy that works for everyone.
Now that's something that a U.S. senator said in public.
Does that square with anything you've heard or observed or felt?
Really doesn't, does it?
Well, thankfully we have Charles Payne at Fox Business who responds to Senator Booker and he says, quote, golly!
I couldn't love that more.
If you don't watch Charles Bain, he's pretty great at his commentary.
He goes, golly, Senator Booker, you are too smart for this kind of misinformation.
Inflation costs keep piling up at an unacceptable rate, pace.
But and then he shows a graph, and the graph is just like a straight line up because it's cumulative, and I think Booker is looking at maybe some period instead of looking at the cumulative effect.
So, those are two opposite things.
It's either it keeps going up, or it's down more than 60%.
Do you think those two things could be the same?
Can you live in a world where it's up 60% but also, or it's down 60% but it's also up every day?
That's gaslighting.
You actually will think you're crazy if you start listening to this stuff.
Meanwhile, Mark Cuban says, talking about some good things in the economy, he says consumer bankruptcies are at historic lows.
Consumers facing third-party collections are at record lows.
Credit card balances are down 1.2%, even though the population has increased.
That's good, isn't it?
Household debt has a percentage of income, not counting COVID.
And, oh, it's at a historic low, except for COVID.
And used car prices are down 59%.
So, I guess that's a lot of good news for the economy, right?
Okay.
At the same time, that's being reported by Mark Cuban.
And by the way, I think the numbers are all real, except there might be a little context left out.
Do you think?
A little context left out?
So, for example, the cost of used cars coming down, is that not purely the effect of the pandemic being over?
The reason used cars were so expensive Is because of the pandemic.
Am I wrong about that?
So to quote that as a statistic, it's not really a sign of health in the economy.
It's very cherry-picked, yeah.
But Newsmax reporting that roughly one-third of credit card holders were delinquent on their payments in 2023, and that's up 25% from 2019.
This is from the Fed.
That's up 25% from 2019.
This is from the Fed.
So could both of these things be true?
Mark Cuban says credit card balances are down just a little bit, 1% or so.
But could it be true that the balances are down, but the delinquencies are up?
Of course it can.
Yeah, there's no reason that they can't both be true.
So it could be that people are, you know, holding back a little bit the extra borrowing.
What would be a reason that people are adding less to their credit card balances?
Can you think of any reason that they would add less to their credit card balances?
I have a suggestion.
Could it be that Newsmax's report that one-third of credit card holders are delinquent would suggest that maybe they're not adding to their balance?
Don't the credit card companies stop letting you use their card if you don't ever pay them back?
Am I wrong about that?
Wouldn't the decrease in balances be because the people are broke and they haven't paid back the balance that they already have on there?
And so the credit card company says, we can't give you any more credit.
You already spent it all and you're not paying us.
Yeah, there's a little bit, a little bit of context left.
A little bit of context.
Let's see what else.
18% of maxed out their credit cards in the first quarter of 2024.
So if 18% maxed out their credit cards, by definition, that's 18% of the public who were unable to increase the balance on their credit card.
Why?
It was maxed.
It couldn't go any higher.
All right.
In the Hill, there's an opinion piece saying Biden has become detached from economic reality.
Detached from economic reality.
Well, I would like to suggest an idea for a game show.
And the game show should be Biden says something, and then there'd be a panel of contestants, and the contestants have to decide if what he said is based on dishonesty or dementia.
And that would be the name of the show.
Dishonesty or Dementia.
Welcome to another episode of Dishonesty or Dementia.
Today, Joe Biden will be talking about the unemployment rate.
Uh, the unemployment rate is 110%.
Panel, was that dishonesty or dementia?
You can ask any question you like.
Uh, where did you get that number?
Where'd I get that number?
You dog-faced pony soldier.
Stop asking that fatso.
All right.
Was it dementia or dishonesty?
God, they look so similar.
They look exactly alike.
I don't know.
So dishonesty or dementia.
You know, that came from one of the Trump ads.
Great frame.
The dishonesty or dimension makes you think past the sale.
The sale is, it's not true.
But you have to decide which of the two reasons makes it not true.
Because he's lying and he knows it, or he can't tell the difference.
Let me ask you this.
When you hear Trump say something that you don't think is true, Do you ever think it's because he has dementia?
No, you don't.
I mean, Democrats might say that, but they don't think that.
Only Biden you can't tell.
Just think about that.
If you can't tell if it's dishonesty, and by the way, dishonesty is a way better word than lying, because lying is what everybody does.
But dishonesty almost feels like its own category.
Because lying is so normal in politics.
You know, it's hyperbole, exaggeration, leaving out context.
That's so ordinary that we almost don't even notice anymore.
Because we, you know, we discount it in our minds.
But dishonesty would include, you know, accepting gold bars and sewing it into your suit, like gold bar Bob.
Dishonesty suggests there's something up with Ukraine and Hunter and all that.
So dishonesty is a much better political word.
Anyway, dishonesty or dementia?
Let's keep that frame open.
Representative Ayanna Pressley was at some hearing talking about, I think it was sexual harassment cases that were going unaddressed in the FDIC or something.
And she's talking to the board and she got all mad because it's a bunch of men on the board and so that was kind of bothering her.
And then she did her little tirade, which was actually pretty good.
I have to admit, I haven't heard much from her except weird things out of context.
When she got going and she was making her point, her point was something like 80% of the sexual harassment cases were being ignored.
That's a pretty good point.
Wouldn't you agree?
If that's true, that's a pretty good point.
And maybe somebody needs to get in somebody's face about that.
And she did a really good job.
I have to say, she's impressive as a communicator.
She's impressive.
But then she ended it with, I'm so tired of white men failing up.
What?
I'm so tired of white men failing up.
So the idea was that people only had these jobs because they were white.
Now, of course, it's racist.
And so I don't have to tell you, she was immediately, you know, disavowed by all Democrats, and then she had to resign.
Because all the Democrats saw this as racist.
It's so obviously racist.
And they banded together, and together, What with the protests that Soros funded against her.
The pressure was too much and she had to retire, so she quit her job in disgrace.
No, none of that happened.
Nope.
Nope.
It was just one day of Republicans complaining about her being a racist in public.
And nothing happened.
Nope.
Apparently, you can be a Democrat and just be full-out racist, And it won't cost you a thing.
There'll be no pushback whatsoever.
She has a totally safe situation, but totally racist.
On another angle, which is the fashion angle, if you haven't seen the picture, she's taken to dressing like Klaus Schwab.
He's got like the sci-fi outfit on and the shaved head.
I don't know if she has alopecia or something, but But it's like a total Klaus Schwab, the shaved head and the space age outfit.
It's kind of a good look.
If you think I'm making fun of her, I'm actually not.
It was a good look.
You know, if you're going to have a shaved head and you're a woman, you might as well like go for it, like lean into it.
And it looks like that's what she did with like a style, you know, maybe like a style choice that would detract from the head.
It's actually a pretty good, Pretty good look.
I liked it.
Mitt Romney says provocatively he's having too much fun.
He says that Biden should have pardoned Trump.
Now you say to yourself, what?
He's such an anti-Trumper.
Why does he think Biden should have pardoned him?
Well, He gave this reason.
He goes, why?
He goes, well, because it makes me—so he's pretending if he's President Biden—he says, it makes me, President Biden, the big guy, and the person I pardoned, the little guy.
Oh, that's actually a pretty good point.
It's a pretty good point.
Except that obviously it doesn't work, since the person who had pardoned him is the one who's behind the whole thing, we assume.
So no, he's not going to pardon him.
He's the one who put him there in the first place.
But it's a typical Romney thing.
I think he's just having fun.
Like, I can't imagine he's trying to accomplish anything useful at this point.
Well, meanwhile, the new Dutch leader is in Holland, or the Dutch are putting together some strict asylum policies, which would be different from the rest of the European Union.
And so the question I ask you is this.
This is Geert Wilder.
And he's declaring, he calls it the strictest asylum policy ever in Dutch history.
And it will do things like not prioritize housing for asylum people.
To which I said, why were they prioritizing housing for asylum people?
But apparently they don't want to do that anymore.
So that's sort of going against the grain and we'll see what happens.
However, there is another leader over in that part of the world.
Who is also opposed to the EU's migration rules.
Or when I say there's another leader, I mean, there used to be yesterday until he was assassinated.
Now I think he's still alive, but he has a number of bullets in him they're trying to remove.
Slovakian Prime Minister.
So he was shot several times in public.
I think he's still alive as of the last I checked before I went on here, but it didn't look good.
And do you think that has anything to do with anything except that he's not going along with the program?
It feels like maybe that was one of ours.
It feels like maybe somebody American was behind it, I hate to say.
Anyway, I have no reason to believe that except that it would be consistent.
Um, so, well, let me put that in context.
If I told you it seems to me it's likely that America was behind the assassination of the, or attempted, of a Slovakian prime minister because he wasn't going along with whatever the migration rules are, I don't think I ever, before even maybe this week, would have said, you know, there's a good chance America is behind that.
I would have said, that's ridiculous.
Why would we do that?
But given all we know of what has happened to Flynn and to Trump, yeah, that could happen.
Sure.
If you watch Ukraine, you can see that this looks like an ordinary business.
I would say that most likely has some kind of state sponsorship to it, but we'll find out later.
Could be just a crazy person, you never know.
But apparently the Slovakians think it was political, so not so much a crazy person.
Pollster John McLaughlin, according to Just the News, reports that RFK Jr.
will take more votes from Biden.
I think that's true.
I think RFK Jr.
will take more votes from Biden.
And some have suggested that one of the reasons that Biden wants an early debate is he has more chance of keeping RFK Jr.
out of it.
Now RFK Jr.
said in a post yesterday, so there's a little confusion I have here, he said he qualified for the CNN debate.
Did you see that post?
So yesterday I saw him say, hey, I qualified for the debate, as if he's going to be in it.
Now qualifying means I think you have to have, you know, your polls have to be a certain level before you can be in it.
And, but that doesn't mean that CNN agreed, right?
That only means that he believes they should agree.
I don't believe it means they agreed.
Now, what I would expect is that CNN will protect Biden, even though they are criticizing him.
I think that part of the reason for even agreeing to the debates would be to freeze out RFK Jr.
So it could be about that.
But here's my take on it.
Oh, I gotta say one other thing first.
Did you see Chuck Todd on one of the shows?
He said that he thought that RFK Jr.' 's voice would make, that it would be good to have RFK Jr.
on the debate stage because it would make Biden look stronger.
Because his voice, his voice he says, would make Biden look like a stronger candidate.
Now, I don't disagree with that, because we're very influenced by voice and height and appearance and hair and attractiveness, all that stuff.
It all counts.
Definitely voice makes a difference.
If you had a really annoying voice, you wouldn't go as far.
It's just a fact.
And I will even go further, if he had not been a Kennedy, I doubt he would have been this far, because people do have a problem with his voice.
Privately, It's the thing people tell me the most.
They say, yeah, well, I can't even get interested in his policies because I can't get past the voice.
So it's a real issue.
A lot of people said Chuck Todd was being a dick for bringing it up because it's a disability, to which I say, yeah, it's a dick move.
It's a total dick move.
It's also true.
So, you know, sometimes maybe it's good to have a dick to tell you what Only somebody who's a total dick would say out loud, if it matters.
And I do think it matters.
Now, I will tell you that I have offered to help RFK Jr.
fix his voice, because I think there might be a quick fix, but I don't know.
Well, maybe one in five odds.
It's not high odds.
And it goes like this.
If you've heard his sister talk, you know she's got a similar propensity.
She doesn't have the condition, but you can tell there's a weakness there that maybe easily could have gone over to a full spasmodic dysphonia.
And I think that both of them speak from their throat, meaning that they produce words Uh, down in the throat like this.
Now, if I, right now I'm, I'm producing my voice in my throat.
Uh, I don't know if you can tell, but if I still had the problem of spasmodic dysphonia, you wouldn't be able to hear a word I say because of where I'm producing the voice.
Cause I'm producing it at the very place.
The problem is the vocal cords, but watch this.
Okay.
Now I'm up in the top of my head.
If you use humming as your technique, the humming allows you to center the production where you produce the voice, and you can move it up out of your throat and into what's called the mask of your face.
So if you raise your tone a little bit, when you want to be deep and have a deep voice, you tend to go down into your throat to produce it.
But if you don't mind talking a little bit higher, and the audience won't mind, You can do what I'm doing right now, which is using perfect technique to talk.
I say, I think there's at least a 20% chance since this technique is not common and it's not even taught by voice professionals.
This technique you would never even run into if all you did is talk to regular voice professionals.
This is something that, you know, one voice doctor taught me and I walked out of there being able to almost talk normally even before the surgery.
The trouble is you have to practice it over and over and over again and I couldn't keep up with it.
But I did see people completely cured with nothing but humming and practicing this technique.
People who had the condition cured with no medicine or surgery, just changing where they produce their voice.
So I speculate That there's at least a 20% chance that RFK Jr.
has never been exposed to the technique.
But once exposed, it could take half a minute to master it.
So there's a 20% chance that he could speak perfectly before the election.
Isn't that weird?
I would bet against it.
I'll bet against it 80 to 20.
I'll bet against it.
But I don't think I know if he's ever been exposed to this technique.
I'm using it right now, by the way.
So you do have to use it consciously.
You have to remind yourself to produce the sound up here.
Somebody saw a video of me a few years ago and said my voice sounded different.
I think that's true because I've been practicing producing my voice up in the top of my head.
There was a time when I couldn't talk for more than 10 minutes without getting hoarse, and that was because I was using the wrong technique.
Anyway, the two debates, here are the things that Biden is asking for.
No RFK Jr., just the two of them.
Microphones off when Trump is talking.
Democrat groups would be hosting it, you know, like CBS and CNN.
There's having it early, which would give Biden plenty of time to recover if it doesn't go well.
But I would add that it gives him plenty of time to replace him.
I think that is his advisors probably want it to happen as soon as possible, because if it's a total disaster, you can still replace him if he had to.
I mean, if it's really that bad, you could replace him.
But here's my take.
I think that Biden is doing a Gavin Newsom.
Which is the Dilber strategy.
You know how Gavin Newsom said, uh, reparations?
Hey, that's a great idea.
Why don't you go study it and come back?
And basically using the bureaucracy to kill something that he can't kill on his own.
So it's like, yeah, form a committee, make a recommendation.
No, maybe you should study it some more.
Just making it go away.
I think that's what Biden is doing with the debates.
I don't think he necessarily thinks he's going to debate.
I think he was trying to make it so hard that it just wouldn't happen.
And I think that that's going to get even stronger, because I think he's going to make up a reason that he couldn't possibly be on the stage with that criminal Trump.
Something like that.
But the other possibility is, and this is the one I like the best, His staff hates him.
Biden.
I think his staff hates him.
And here's why.
Because they're not stopping him from debating.
I think that Biden thinks he can do it, because he doesn't know how degraded he is.
His staff knows he can't, and they just gave up and said, you know what?
Like, if you can pull it off, go ahead, but we can't help you anymore.
So, if you're going to go down in flames, let's do this right away.
Let's get the flaming over with, and then maybe we can go on with our lives.
So, it might be capitulation.
You might be seeing capitulation, where they just gave up.
Said, all right, go debate.
Good luck with that.
Nobody will know if it's dishonesty or dementia.
So maybe they gave up.
Looks like CNN's anchors will be Jake Tapper and Dana Bash.
They're going to be tapping and bashing.
Tapping and bashing.
Anyway, so they'll be the moderators.
Speaking of Jake Tapper, he was mentioning on air that President Biden lied in his last debate with Trump.
When Trump said that Hunter Biden was getting money from China, and Biden acted like he didn't know the country China.
You need to hear the replay.
Because Biden, you know, so Trump makes the accusation that Hunter took millions from China, and then Biden, when he's defending himself, he goes, and he said he took money from China?
He acted like he hadn't heard of the country.
China, is it called?
What's the name of that?
China.
China, I think, is the country you're talking about.
Yeah, I've heard of it.
But even Jake Tapper saying Biden lied directly.
So that's CNN.
Jake Tapper, which I'll give him credit for, is saying he lied.
What happens if he's asked again?
If he's asked again, is he going to say it didn't happen?
Like he did the last time?
Or will the question be, the last time you were asked, you said he hadn't.
Since then, it's a matter of fact that he did take money from China.
What do you say now?
What does he say?
Now, don't you think that CNN maybe got the memo that Biden needs to be taken out?
I think, Jake Tapper and Dana Bash are being sent as assassins to make sure that Biden does not survive to the convention.
Maybe.
Just speculating.
All right.
There's a paper study from some author named Michael Moncrieff and another one named Pierre Lénard.
And they say that what causes radicalization is envy.
That envy causes radicalization.
May I make a suggestion for next time?
You could save a lot of time and a lot of money if you would just ask Scott.
Scott, we're thinking of doing this major research to find out if envy is in any way related to all the protests and the radicalization.
And I would have said, yes.
And they would say, are you sure?
And I would have said, yes.
And they would say, well, how can you be so sure?
And I would say, have you ever seen a protest?
And they would say, well, yes, I've seen many of them.
How many millionaires are at the protests?
Not a lot.
That's right.
Do you know why millionaires don't protest?
Why?
No envy.
They're doing fine.
It's only people who are not doing fine who protest, and they only protest because other people are doing better.
If nobody had money, would there be an Occupy Wall Street?
No.
No.
Right.
Yeah.
And everything is about somebody has something that you wish they didn't have.
So it's envy.
Yeah.
All protests are envy.
But beyond that, they're also fake.
Breitbart is reporting that there's some China money that made its way into left-wing groups that are doing the anti-Israel protests in the U.S.
Are you surprised?
Are you surprised any Chinese money Made it into those protests?
No, not really.
Not too surprised.
So you've got George Soros and China on the same side.
You have funding groups that are protesting.
Well.
I was talking to my smartest Democrat friend.
I mentioned him once in a while.
It's fun to have somebody who's really smart and well informed, who disagrees with you totally.
Because then you can see, you know, the depth of the brainwashing and the gaslighting.
And it's really, it's miraculous.
But he is a graduate of one of these Ivy League schools that's having little issues right now.
And I hate to enjoy it as much as I am.
But do you know I am?
Do you know I enjoy that he went to a better school than I did and they're having protests?
Envy?
Envy!
If I'd gone to the college he went to as an undergraduate, I'd feel completely differently.
But now I just have envy.
Not really.
I don't have much envy.
I guess everybody has a little bit, but I don't have a lot.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to reiterate the most useful thing I've ever done.
I was sort of keeping track the other day of, you know, have I done something useful in this world?
You know, did I do anything that anybody cares about, the levity, the value?
And I'll tell you one of the things I'm most proud of is that alcohol is poison.
Has been so effective, and I don't know how many people have quit drinking because I just told them alcohol is poison.
And it's not because I said it, it's because the framing is so persuasive.
But maybe dozens or hundreds of people, by now, have told me that they quit drinking.
Really just from that, the one reframe, alcohol is poison.
And I think to myself, if I could get a thousand people to quit drinking, I'm almost certainly going to save somebody's life, or at least change some lives.
And I thought, well, that's pretty good.
And I thought if I didn't do anything else, like if the whole rest of my life produced nothing, that'd be pretty good.
Like, I'd feel like, all right, I got that one thing done, helped dozens or maybe hundreds of people.
But then something happened the other day that I'm going to reiterate.
So you've heard this before, but I mention it because it's just so useful.
I was doing a live stream the other day, just to my subscribers on Locals, and somebody asked me for a reframe to help them get out of their head and, you know, stop having ruminations and bad thoughts.
And I suggested the reframe that I tried myself, and it worked.
Where you just say, get out.
Just get out of your head.
Now, the frame that makes it work is to realize that you are a person who has two completely different lives.
This is the key.
There's a part of you that lives only in your head, where you think about the past, which literally doesn't exist.
It's imaginary.
It existed at one point, but now it's just the thoughts of the past.
But you also have thoughts of, oh, what will happen in the future?
I'm worried about the future.
And that doesn't exist.
So the life you live in your head is a completely imaginary one.
So things of the history in your past that don't exist anymore, and worries about the future that doesn't exist yet.
But the outside world is all real stuff.
You know?
Stuff you can touch, breathe, sense.
And we live in both of those worlds.
We go back and forth.
And so the idea that I had that worked when I did it was I just said, get out.
And what I meant was get out of the imaginary world and get into the real one and just walk out in the sun, walk out the door, pet the dog, do a chore, exercise, just get out.
And so I suggested it to my subscribers or a few hundred of them watching in the man cave and said, hey, if you have this problem, you know, try this thing.
Just say, get out, get out.
And then I followed up, and a whole bunch of people, just like a wall of people saying, yes, it worked, it worked, it worked.
And I thought, really?
Did that really work?
Now, if I hadn't seen, you know, and experienced that alcohol as poison caused dozens or hundreds or even thousands, I have no idea, of people to quit drinking, which is a tough thing to do.
I wouldn't have imagined That just two words, get out, could cure somebody's mental problems, or at least at the moment.
And so I said, if there's somebody who hasn't tried it yet, go ahead and try it.
And then I checked in again last night.
Oh my God.
Apparently it's curing mental illness instantly.
Really?
Like actually.
And so I'm going to ask you this.
As a favor, try it once.
Just try it once.
Just tell yourself you have two worlds.
There's the imaginary one in your head and then there's a real one.
And all sadness comes from the imaginary one.
Everything that's mental illness is the imaginary one.
Now you want me to take it one step further?
All right.
You want me to connect all the dots?
You ready for this?
Ready to have your mind blown?
You know, there's a huge increase in mental illness, and phones have been blamed for that.
But what exactly is the mechanism by which a phone causes mental illness?
Let me suggest that phones make you live in your imaginary world longer than you would normally be there.
When I'm on my phone and I'm looking at somebody else, I'm imagining myself compared to them in my imaginary world.
So every minute you're spending on social media with other people's imaginary worlds, it brings you into your imaginary world.
Because you're looking at people who don't really have those lives just the way they look, right?
They're giving you an impression.
It's an imaginary.
And so my speculation on the mechanism is that using phones doesn't just keep you awake.
It doesn't just give you envy.
It does give you envy.
It doesn't just do that.
It doesn't just distract you.
It doesn't just cause you to exercise less.
It causes you to be inside your head.
And that will make you batshit crazy.
And the cure for it is to yell, get out!
As soon as you find unpleasantness because you're in your head, Get out.
Just get out.
Join the real world.
Just go zoop.
Hey, I'm in the real world again.
Look at this.
Real world.
You'll feel instantly better.
And so as a public service, I would like to cure all the alcohol overuse and all the mental illness in the United States.
And if I can get that done, And I'll feel like I did almost enough.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is all I have for you.
I expect all of you to try it tomorrow.
And if you're not convinced yet... Oh, I wish you could see all the comments that I can see.
Because I can see all the comments, but if you're on the other platforms, you only see your own.
So tomorrow I'm going to ask you, how many of you tried it?
So I want all the YouTube people, the X people, and the Rumble people You tell me if you tried it by tomorrow and watch what happens.
If you haven't tried it, you're going to see a wall of yeses where people said, holy crap, why did that work?
Now, the next thing I'm going to do is I'm going to make a very small two minute video in which I explain this technique.
Because if it works, you're going to want to share it.
So let me do that as a public service.
Normally that would only be for the subscribers at Locals.
Let me ask, subscribers on Locals, you wouldn't mind if I released this to everybody, even though you pay a subscription to see the good stuff, right?
Everybody okay with that?
Because the thing is that Locals, we talk about this when we're private, has become sort of a brain, where I'm sort of like the host of the brain.
But the brain does the thinking.
It's like the group of people.
And this wouldn't have happened, you know, the get out thing.
That couldn't have happened except somebody in the community asked me the question.
I speculated, you know, took a shot at it.
And then the crowd tested it.
And then the crowd told me it worked.
So it's like it was one giant brain, you know, with a little bit of orchestration, but I wasn't the brain.
The brain was the larger group.
And that's cool.
So ladies and gentlemen on the other platforms, I'm going to spend some time with the locals people privately, but be sure to come back tomorrow and let me know if that worked.
So goodbye to YouTube and Rumble and the X platform.
