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, President Trump, Soviet-Style Trump Show Trial, Robotic Seeing Eye Dog, Fauci Bad, Mushroom Alcoholism Cure, Plunging Birth Rate, Vivek Ramaswamy, Vivek Buzzfeed, North Korean Remote Tech Workers, David Austin Walsh, Thomas Massie, Closed-Door USMCA, Mexico Infrastructure Upgrades, Pandemic Data Credibility, Loneliness Health Impact, NYC Sanctuary City, UNC DEI Ban, John Eastman, Election Credibility, Gaza Floating Pier, President Biden Legacy, Rafah, Scott Adams
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
It's the best thing that's ever happened to you, and we're gonna take it up to a level that you can't even understand with your smooth, tiny human brain.
All you need for this is a cupper, a mug or a glass, a tanker, a chalice, a stein, a canteen, a jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine, the end-of-the-day thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go, go, go.
Ah.
A reminder, I was just talking about this in the pre-show with the locals people.
If you can find the old Dilbert animated show, sometimes it's on YouTube illegally, play it at 1.5 or 1.25 speed, and it becomes hilarious.
It was not bad at regular speed, but it's way funnier if you speed it up a little bit, because your attention span isn't really set for slow speed.
That's your tip for the day.
Well, CBS News is reporting that the Mexican government, they were trying to move a mummified body as part of a museum piece.
It's a 19th century mummified body.
And one of its arms fell off.
Wow.
That's a bummer.
They got a mummy with an arm fell off.
Well, one of the things you can know from this story is that the mummy Did not come from one of the cartels.
Do you know why you know that?
The mummy is not a cartel member?
How do you know?
Because Mexico's never disarmed anybody in the cartel.
Yeah, I'm starting right off on the dad jokes about disarmed mummies.
And the rest of the show, it's just gonna get better from there.
I know it's hard to believe.
I may have peaked too soon.
But yeah, nobody in the cartel has ever been disarmed in Mexico.
Well, you may have missed Trump's inspirational Memorial Day message.
I'll give you just the first sentence.
Happy Memorial Day to all, including the human scum that is working so hard to destroy our once great country.
I am never going to be satisfied with a normal president.
How can I have this forever?
I just like this so much.
I can't even express how much I like this.
Now, what's interesting about this is that Trump is still disciplined enough that he doesn't make sweeping generalizations about groups of people.
When he's talking about the human scum, he means individuals.
He's not saying, oh, all you Democrats are bad.
That would be dumb.
He's not saying everybody in Maggie is bad, like Joe Biden, because that would be really dumb.
That would be what a dementia patient would say.
Now, Trump says some individuals are a human scum and, uh, no, no need to hide that.
Might as well put it right out there.
Now, if you were in a law fair trial, it was, you know, there were 91 fake indictments against you.
Fake meaning it wouldn't have happened to anybody else.
Um, yeah.
You are dealing with human scum, and if you want to call him that, I just say, well, that seems like an accurate impression of the world.
So yes, please, more of that.
Meanwhile, today's, I guess, the closing case and everything in this Stormy Daniels trial.
I don't know when we're going to see a result of this.
Maybe somebody smarter can tell me.
Is it possible it would be tonight?
Is anybody, It's possible it's tonight, right?
That we'd learn?
But maybe not?
Alright.
So here's what we know so far.
The amused account on X is live-tweeting it.
And this is how he describes it.
It's a great tweet.
Trump trial.
I'll be live-tweeting the Democrats' Soviet-style show trial here.
Now, would you normally think that that would be hyperbole?
If somebody says that in America we're having a Soviet-style show trial, it really isn't hyperbole.
It's almost like you can't, there's not enough hyperbole in the world.
It's exactly what's happening.
It's a fake trial and everybody knows it.
It's the weirdest situation.
If everybody knows it's fake and we still can't stop it, If we all know it's fake, and we do.
I mean, people argue that they don't, but they do.
So here's the rest of the tweet.
He says, To start, Acting Justice Merchant is requiring Trump to present his closing argument before he hears the prosecution's claim against him.
We still aren't sure what they're claiming Trump did.
So Trump's defense will have to rest before they've heard what crime he's accused of committing that would form the basis for the charges.
Now, is that hyperbole?
Does it sound real to you that the trial could be over before you hear what the charges are, and that's the last thing the jury will hear?
It doesn't seem possible, does it?
Your brain says, well, okay, there's something left out of this.
You know, that's not exactly what happened, right?
It's some kind of exaggeration, isn't it?
I don't know.
I don't know.
It might be, but the amuse account is usually pretty straightforward.
It's not known for making stuff up, whoever's behind it.
And there were a lot of experts who said the same thing.
I think Dershowitz said, nobody's described a crime yet.
Jonathan Turley, same thing.
Where's the crime?
You have to at least tell us what the crime was.
And then others who tried to explain it, but in trying to explain it, it's so weird that when you hear the explanation, you're like, I still don't know what you just said.
Like, are you saying there's a predicate of some kind of a double misdemeanor that if you combine them and Like what?
Normal people can't even hold this in their head.
So yeah, it's a big fake old trial.
The MSDEI people on the MSDEI network, you call them MSNBC, but I think I'm going to call them MSDEI.
Because here's the thing I noticed about the difference between MSDEI and CNN.
CNN looks like people who know exactly what they're doing.
So if they spin something, I feel like they know exactly what they're doing.
On MSDEI, I don't even know if they know that they're spinning.
I don't get a sense that there's even a capability underneath them.
They just seem incompetent.
Now, both networks have plenty of diversity.
So it's not diversity per se, that's the problem.
But it could be that there may have been a looser hiring standard at MSDEI.
That's possible.
It acts like it.
It looks like maybe they were a little more interested in the diversity than the quality.
Maybe CNN was a little more interested in the quality over the diversity.
That's what it looks like in outcome.
Anyway, so the MSDEI people say, oh, he's totally getting prosecuted because the prosecution did such a good job proving the case.
And then Dershowitz says, what case?
You didn't even describe the theory.
So how can it be simultaneously true that, oh yeah, he's getting convicted because they totally made that case, but also they haven't even described exactly the charges.
Can they both be true?
No.
No.
Somebody's lying.
Who do you think it is?
Dershowitz, who gave away his entire reputation so he could tell the truth?
Do you think he's the one lying?
Probably not.
Probably not.
I'd listen to him on this.
There's a robot seeing eye dog now, Fox News is reporting.
So you get this little robotic dog that'll Now, there's literally nothing about this that's interesting, because I don't think it's real.
I've been using AI for a while now, and if AI is driving the dog, it's like everything else with AI.
It looks like it might work someday, but it doesn't work now.
You're not sure, really, if it will.
Yeah, I've got a feeling that the dog will walk you into traffic every now and then, because AI still hallucinates.
How do you keep your physical objects from hallucinating, too?
If you know if you talk to AI, it will sometimes just make up a whole answer at the end of nothing.
How in the world do you train the AI that's doing your self-driving car not to hallucinate another car?
How do you do that?
Now, it may be that the visual training gets you a much better result than the language models.
It might be that's the whole answer.
But the only reason I'm bringing this up, because I'm skeptical that that seeing-eye robot dog is ever going to be real and practical, is that Fox News, when they tweeted it, they had a really good pun.
It says, the AI-powered seeing robot dog guide provides a New leash on life for the blind.
A new leash on life.
Dad joke approved.
Uh, this next, this next article, I'm just going to put this under the category of Fauci bad.
Have you had the experience that I have that you're trying to follow this EcoHealth Wuhan Lab, Fauci, NIH, What exactly happened during the pandemic?
It's all so confusing and boring, you can't really hold it in your head.
So I've decided to summarize it.
Fauci bad.
Fauci bad.
Here's another evidence from an account called Chief Nerd.
I followed today on X. Did you know that in their documentation and their emails during the pandemic, That they used intentional misspellings for reasons that are not real obvious.
So in other words, when I say misspelling, I don't mean a typo.
I mean, when they said EcoHealth Alliance, they spelled it E-C, little, what do you call it?
What is the wavy dash?
It has a name.
And then health.
And then Anderson was spelled with a dollar sign where the O is.
Why does anybody put special characters in common words that the people they're writing to know what the word is, even with a special character?
It's to hide it from discovery.
When somebody does a keyword search and they say, can you tell us all the memos about eco health?
And then the search can't find it.
Can you tell us all the, all the stories about whoever Anderson is?
Nope.
Don't find any Anderson mentions in the memos.
So why would anybody do this?
Well, it's because whatever they're doing, they don't want people to know about then or later.
It's one thing to hide it in the moment because let's say you're, you think you're doing the right thing and it involves fooling the public.
But I think they were doing it for the long run too.
Where even if they'd done something that turned out well, they still were afraid that it wouldn't come out well and they weren't telling you.
So whatever, I don't know what their thinking was or what the rationale was, but when you see somebody intentionally hiding the names of the key players and the key elements of the pandemic in their memos, yeah, it means that your FOIA request isn't going to find them and they can get away with stuff.
So let me summarize this.
Fauci bad.
Fauci bad.
All right.
The FBI's behavioral unit and other scientific people have decided that that whole Havana secret sonic weapon was definitely a mass hysteria.
Now, I've already taken some victory laps on this.
I believe I'm the only person in the world that, at least as a public figure, Who said on day one of the secret sonic weapon against the embassies, oh no, that's a classic mass hysteria.
Now, why did I know on day one it was a mass hysteria?
And even today, years later, we're just getting, well, now we kind of think it must have been a mass hysteria.
What's the difference between me getting it on day one and the FBI waiting years to figure it out?
Do you know why?
Simple.
It's a talent stack thing.
I've spent time learning what causes a mass hysteria, reading about them historically, and then recognizing the pattern.
So the moment I saw it, I was like, oh yeah, this is just like all the ones in the book I read.
It's exactly like them.
And so on day one, I called it correctly.
Now, is it because I'm magic?
No!
I just had a very specific skill That I'd spend some time in the past to develop.
I developed the ability to spot a mass hysteria, and it worked.
So, books.
Hey, books!
I don't know if anybody's ever recommended this, but it turns out there's a lot of knowledge you can get out of books.
So, there's a little trick for you.
Read some books.
There's another report that psychedelic mushrooms could cure alcoholism.
We've been hearing this forever, that it can help you with addiction, but apparently they've got a little better read on what the mechanism is, and it does seem to confirm that it should have that effect.
In other words, it blocks some serotonin receptors that regulate your drinking, which means that your drinking wouldn't be as fun after you had the mushrooms, which is kind of a weird specific effect, isn't it?
It really makes you wonder what's up with the mushrooms, that they can make such a specific change to you that is exactly the one you needed.
It's kind of weird.
I don't know.
I think it's true because I've heard too many reports of people getting unaddicted after mushrooms, but there's something mysterious about it still.
There was a funny post today on X from a user called Bark.
And he said, quote, I've never met a rich and successful person who smokes weed, not even once.
Well, you can imagine how that post went.
I introduced myself, as did others.
But let me give you my take on this.
It's rare to meet successful people.
Because I'm in a, let's say, privileged situation, where having had some success in my own career, it makes you easily meet people who've had success in their career.
Sort of automatic.
So I've probably met more successful people than people who are not also somewhat in the public eye.
If you're in the public eye, you meet lots of successful people.
But here's my take.
Um, whoever Bark is, your friends, either you haven't met many successful people or they don't trust you because they're not telling you the truth.
Here's my take.
Pretty much all successful people are using drugs.
It's hard to, you don't really run into too many exceptions.
They're not all using marijuana, but many of them are.
Some are using a variety of performance-enhancing drugs.
Some are microdosing on this or that.
Very common.
Some are using stimulants.
It could be meth.
It could be Adderall.
But my take is that rich and successful people Have found out how to use drugs to help their career and people who have not done it, let's say methodically, are on the wrong drugs.
If you were a, this will sound terrible, but could you all agree with me that if you're a functional alcoholic, meaning that you can somehow stay out of trouble, you're probably a good salesperson.
Because sales is a lot about inviting people out to drinks and being social.
So if you cannot turn into a monster when you drink, it's just something that you like to do.
And I'll tell you, one of the people who drinks the most that I know is also one of the richest.
And he uses his drinking as marketing.
Like he drinks when he goes on marketing and sales trips.
He goes out for drinks and when they're done, everybody loves them and they stay in touch and they become friends because it's a bonding experience.
And, uh, so yes, I would say that it's very individual.
If, if I drank, it would just be nothing but bad health.
Um, I wouldn't be able to function and I'm not sure I recommend it.
I mean, I don't think that, you know, his health is necessarily going to be the best, but it's very consistent.
The people who have made financial breakthroughs have usually figured out how to use drugs as an advantage, even if it has some bad effect later, they've figured out how to weaponize it in their favor.
That's the difference between the addicts.
Alright.
There's a report that a lot of the people Taking that Ozempic weight loss drug are getting pregnant at higher rates.
It's not confirmed, but I guess there's a big Facebook page of people saying, Hey, I went on Ozempic and now I'm pregnant.
And I guess it's a big thing.
And so there's a lot of scientific talk about, huh, What scientifically is happening with Zozempic that's making people get pregnant?
I wonder how the chemistry works.
What exactly is the biomechanism that might be causing more pregnancy from weight loss?
Maybe you should have checked in with me before you spent any money researching this.
I'm no medical scientist.
But I'm just going to put out a speculative guess, call it a hypothesis, that people who lose weight are more attractive to their mates, and that people who lose weight feel more confident and feel more comfortable taking their clothes off.
So, given that we know obesity will lower your libido, and losing weight makes you more bangable, what would you expect?
What would you expect?
Are you telling me you didn't expect more pregnancies from people losing weight?
How could it really go the other way?
It's hard to imagine it would have gone any other way.
So wouldn't it be interesting if our birth rates are plunging, but what ends up fixing it would be ozempic?
Now I've told you before, That I do think one of the biggest reasons our birth rate is going down is that we've become less attractive to each other.
Weight is just part of it.
But we're also, imagine if you will, that Democrats made 50% of the country unfuckable.
That happened, right?
When I was a kid, if I saw a marriage where there was like one Democrat and one Republican, I would say, oh, that's fun.
I wouldn't even think much of it.
It would be so normal.
But today, it's the first filter.
So you tell me, you tell me how America can survive when you divide by political parties that are roughly, you know, 40% of the public each.
You can't survive.
If you take 40% of the potential bangable people and of the equation, you get way fewer kids.
There's no way around that.
And I would argue that Democrats have doomed the United States to failure by making it so unpleasant to get along with each other by, you know, demonizing the right.
And by the way, it doesn't really work the other way.
You know, people on the right, if they met a normal Democrat, you know, wasn't a crazy progressive pro Hamas Democrat, they'd be fine with it.
They just say, oh, we disagree about these things, so we'll just talk about something else.
But Democrats have quite pointedly and directly and with great effort made all Republicans unfuckable to them.
And at the same time, the progressives seem unfuckable to most Republicans.
How in the world do you survive that?
That's an existential event.
I mean, there is no obvious way you could ever survive as a country under the current situation.
Now, I think we'll solve it with robots.
We're going to solve it with robots.
I don't know if that's good.
I don't know if that's healthy.
But I think people are going to say, if I can't have access to half of the world, and the ones that I do have access, only the top 5% look good, And they're all either run through or they're whores because they have all the options in the world.
Both the men and the women.
That's not a sexist statement.
I'm calling the men whores as well.
Uh, how do you survive that?
I have no idea.
So I don't think that we've been tough enough on what Biden has done to the country.
Right.
I'll use him as the leader of the Democrats.
The Democrats have made us a country that can't reproduce at a replacement level.
They have to bring in extra people.
They broke reproduction in this country.
They broke it.
Yeah, you can't take away half the options and expect you'll get the same outcome of babies.
It's not possible.
Anyway, Vivek Ramaswamy, you may have heard, bought a Well, 7 or 8% interest in BuzzFeed because its value decreased so much that a few million dollars gets you a few percentage of it.
So he's pushing for some board seats, wants three board seats that he would be happy with because he's an important shareholder now.
And he says that, let's see, the value plummeted from about $1.5 billion to just under $100 million.
And he sent this long letter to the board of directors.
He's urging BuzzFeed to add more directors that he'd vetted and change the business models because they're hemorrhaging money.
Now, I just love this.
I love this.
You know, I think you would agree with me, at least my audience would, that Elon must save free speech.
Is that a fair statement?
You know, I said that yesterday.
And I thought to myself, is that hyperbole?
My kind of going out on a Republican spin?
Or is that close to reality?
And I decided it's reality.
I think he legitimately, literally, right in front of us, saved free speech in America.
Now, it's not where we want it, because right now, X is still a little island.
You know, some of it gets reported to other places, but it is one place I can say whatever is true without worrying about getting canceled.
As long as it's true.
You know, if I said a bunch of bullshit, then I would expect some consequences.
But as long as I think it's true and I'm doing, you know, my best effort to, you know, correct things and be honest, I'm fine.
And that didn't exist before.
Now, Vivek taking it to the next level, BuzzFeed is still important enough, at least in our consciousness, that if he could reconstruct it into something useful, that was not just a total horrible hit piece, spin machine piece of shit, that would be a huge service to the country.
So if we could get two little islands of non-spin, well, everything is spin, but two little islands of at least free speech, that'd be amazing.
So good job, Vivek, on that.
I was tempted to volunteer to be one of the board of directors, only because BuzzFeed has been issuing headpieces on me for years.
And I thought, well, wouldn't that be sweet, to be on the board of directors after they've been fucking with me for years?
That would be delicious.
But that sounds like real work, and I have no interest in sitting on a board.
You know why they call it a board?
Because they're all bored.
Dad joke number three, if you keep in count.
Another favorite story.
All the news is funny today.
Apparently, Unusual Wales is reporting this.
I don't know where the original story came from.
But thousands of North Koreans stole American identities and took remote work tech jobs at Fortune 500 companies, the Department of Justice says.
So during the pandemic, especially, I think, North Koreans pretended to be Americans and stole their tech jobs.
Are you ready for the funny part?
I mean, it's starting funny already, right?
Like the setup gets you halfway there.
Can I give you the punchline now?
How exactly did they get those jobs?
They pretended to be Americans.
Did they pretend to be me?
No.
No, they didn't pretend to be me.
What Americans do you think they pretended to be?
Because they got jobs remotely without even showing up for an appointment.
They didn't show up for any kind of interview.
Oh!
I'm thinking they may have claimed that they were members of a disadvantaged community.
Did they pretend to be black so they could get jobs at any Fortune 500 company and work remotely?
Thank you.
Did that happen?
Because it seems like it's mysteriously missing from the story.
Let me give you a second story that's unrelated.
Or is it?
So this will be your test.
Here's an unrelated story.
Or is it?
So, I forgot the name, but there was a little fun on the X platform.
There was a gentleman who was a 35-year-old historian, and his special focus had been, you know, white supremacy and discrimination in history.
So you'd think that this is a, he's a very woke guy, Democrat, super woke, totally on the side of the disadvantaged, and then he applied for a job.
He's a very credentialed historian.
He's published.
But he's very white and male.
Sent out about 40 resumes, got zero interviews.
And he red-pilled himself so hard.
I don't even think he swallowed the red pill.
I think somebody shoved it up his ass.
He still took the red pill, it just wasn't as voluntarily as you might have imagined.
He found out, and by the way he's saying it out loud, that a white man can't get a job in America.
Do you know why?
Because of people like him.
He's been writing about how bad it is to be anything but a white man in America.
And the whole time he was doing it, he didn't realize he'd lost all of his economic rights.
He's basically a useless piece of shit in the American economy because nobody wants a 35 year old white guy.
It doesn't matter if he's been an ally to black Americans and writing about racism and white supremacy.
Nobody gives a shit.
That doesn't show up on anybody's diversity numbers.
The only thing that would have mattered is could the companies that he applied to claim him as a victory in their march toward diversity? The answer is no. It doesn't matter what he said or thought or contributed. None of it mattered.
None of it mattered.
All right. So now that you know that a 35-year-old white guy with good credentials can't even get an interview for a job, how did thousands of North Koreans get jobs without even showing up in person to interview? How do you do that?
Well, I can only think of one way.
I think they probably claimed that they were minorities in America.
Probably.
And do you think that the Department of Justice would mention that?
No.
No.
I'd like to know about the stolen identities.
How many of them were older white men?
Did they get a lot of fake jobs pretending to be older white men?
Did the tech company say, Oh, 50 year old white man.
Yeah.
I do think tech is the one place where you might be able to use your credentials instead of your identity.
Cause you know, maybe they give you a test and say, can you solve this?
If you can solve it, they say, all right, you're hired.
So there, there is more capability.
To pick people who have merit in the tech industry than other places, but just the way the country is, I suspect that the reason they got those jobs without interviewing is they might have sent a picture in.
That's my guess.
How did they not at least have a Zoom call?
Who hires a person without at least a Zoom call where you can see their face?
Oh, here we go.
Here's the post.
From David Austin Walsh.
But I'm 35 years old, I'm four plus years post-PhD, and quite frankly, I'm also a white dude.
Combine those factors together, and I'm for all intents and purposes unemployable as a 20th century American historian.
I shouldn't laugh at his plight, but yeah, he is unemployable.
That's a tough way to find it out.
So, anyway.
Thomas Massey warns us that the USMCA is just NAFTA 2.
Now, I'm not going to make an argument for or against NAFTA.
I'm not going to make an argument for or against USMCA because I don't know enough about them.
But I'll tell you what Thomas Massey told me.
He told me that, in his post, he told us all.
That both were written behind closed doors without involvement from Congress.
Wait, what?
Without involvement from Congress?
Isn't this entirely Congress's decision?
And they weren't involved in their own decision?
Does that even sound possible?
Well, I read on.
Without involvement from Congress, by the cronies who benefit from them, meaning the legislation, and both forfeit our sovereignty to authorities outside of our Constitution.
Okay, I'm with you, Thomas Massey.
I'm going to say that the process is broken, and therefore I don't trust the result.
What do you think about the USMCA?
I don't care.
What do I think about it?
I don't care.
Let me tell you what I care about.
The way it was created is completely unacceptable, so whether it's good or bad, fuck it.
No.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
You don't do it in closed doors without the involvement of Congress.
You let Thomas Massey in there.
You let Thomas Massey in there and let him tell us what happened.
How about a little transparency?
No, no, no.
I don't care how good it is.
I don't care if it's good for America, good for Mexico.
No, no, no.
No squared.
This is the easiest no you'll ever have in your life.
If you're a leader, and Massey is, if you're a leader, this is unambiguously, clearly no.
This is so no that you can't even think of a harder no than, we did it behind closed doors, we're not going to tell you what it is, the people who are in charge of it are unaware of what's in it, it's too complicated, vote for it.
No!
No, no, no!
This is not like some kind of gray area.
There's no gray area.
No.
And I don't care how good it is.
I do not care how good it is for the country.
No.
That's just such a hard no.
Here's a little related news I saw from somebody else a while ago, so I don't remember who was saying it.
But there is a thought that Mexico's economy is about to just boom like crazy.
And I felt, I actually believed that.
Here's the argument.
So apparently Mexico's involved with some major infrastructure changes, such as a railroad across the country to compete with the Panama Canal.
And then there are some other, I think there's a major highway or something that will connect the resorts and there's some other stuff like that.
Then you add to that that manufacturing from China is starting to move toward closer and or friendlier countries with the United States and a lot of that's going to end up in Mexico.
So Mexico is about to have a tourism Explosion because they're connecting the resorts and making it safe to go there just for the resorts.
They're going to put a, you know, a way to move goods across their country that competes with the most, one of the most important trade routes in the world and, and manufacturing is going to explode.
So you've heard the reports that the people coming across the border are mostly non-Mexican.
How do you interpret that?
You know what's weird?
Mexico is largely solved.
The Mexicans who would come across the border now probably just want to be with their relatives.
Or they have some legal problem they're getting away with.
But it can't be an accident that Mexico's economy is looking like it's doing well, relatively speaking.
And that the immigrants from Mexico have dropped off.
So it does tell you that you can stop immigration by improving the economies south of the border.
So in concept, it looks like it could work.
But I don't think we did anything.
I think Mexico just figured out a way to make more money and they're going to do it.
Now, why does it look like Mexico is suddenly running more efficiently than you could imagine in the past?
What do you think changed?
If these three things are true, that now Mexico looks like a good place to manufacture, and they're doing all these big projects that look like they will succeed, why do you think they're suddenly so capable?
Well, I have a theory.
The cartels are in charge and they're really good at what they do.
That's what I think.
I think maybe the cartels added some competence to the government that wouldn't have been there otherwise.
Just a guess.
But it does seem like Mexico upped their game somehow.
We don't know if that's true yet.
We'll keep watching.
The World Economic Forum is reporting that Finland is starting its education against fake news early.
So even in daycare, they're teaching the smallest of kids how to interpret means and spot manipulative images.
So Finland is teaching their kids to detect disinformation.
Isn't that good?
That's good news, isn't it?
Aren't we all happy?
Let's give a standing ovation for Finland, because they're training their kids to spot fake news.
You see any problem with that?
If you don't see the problem right away, let me explain it.
How do the teachers spot fake news?
There are no adults who can do that.
Have you ever met one?
There are no teachers who can spot fake news.
When did that happen?
If adults of any kind could spot fake news with any regularity, it wouldn't exist.
The whole reason there is fake news and manipulation and brainwashing and gaslighting is because a normal educated adult can't tell the difference between real news and fake news.
There wouldn't be two sides to every story if adults with a normal education could tell the difference between what's true and what isn't.
There isn't any possible way, logically, that they could be training these kids with something useful, because there's no way that they know these tools either.
Right?
Let me ask you this.
Do you think they're training the kids that if there's one anonymous source from inside the White House, it's always bullshit?
I taught you that, and you can observe it yourself.
You think they're teaching the kids that?
No.
Let me tell you what they're teaching the kids without even knowing.
Okay, kids.
If somebody tells you climate change isn't real, that's fake.
I'm just guessing, but that would be the level that most of the world is operating at, so I sue most teachers.
How many of the teachers could have told you one anonymous source about a White House insider that comes out of Axios is guaranteed to be bullshit?
I can tell you that, and then you can watch it for yourself.
But there's no teachers that are teaching that.
It's ridiculous.
All right.
Let's see.
The McCullough Foundation.
I assume that's Dr. McCullough's foundation.
Dr. McCullough is one of the early doctors who were against the shots.
And so he's got some, his foundation has some information here.
It shows that in King County in Washington, there was a just gigantic spike in the The vaccinated people dying above baseline expectations.
So there's your proof, right?
So King County, huge difference in your life expectancy, whether you're vaccinated or not.
And the vaccinated were getting, and by the way, compared to the historical trend.
So the trend was going one way and then as soon as the pandemic hit and the shots came out, Everything went to hell.
Very, very clearly at the same time.
Okay?
So therefore, this is really strong evidence that the shots are bad for you, right?
What would Finland teach their kids about this?
Would Finland say, yes, Dr. McCullough and his foundation have now proven that the shots are harmful.
Do you think Finland is learning that?
Do you think this data from the McCullough Foundation is believable?
And does it really just put a bow on it and now you're certain you know what's going on?
Well, let me give you some perspective.
Number one, I don't trust anything that comes out of Peter McCullough, because I believe he got the athlete's sudden death thing wrong, and it's a little like where they teach you at a trial, where they say if you get one thing wrong, you know, if the witness says one thing that's wrong, meaning lie, then you can disbelieve the rest.
He might be right on all the rest, he might be, but That one claim was so easily debunked, if you're not aware of how easily debunked that was, it was very easily debunked.
So if he believed the most easily debunked thing in all the pandemic, then I don't listen to him for anything else.
However, the data is the data, right?
They didn't make up the data.
This came from somewhere else.
They're just reporting it.
So the data is a real strong indication, wouldn't you say?
If you looked at a population, And you saw that as soon as the shots came out, that the people who got the shots far more than the other people had this huge death rate that zoomed.
Well, um, I don't believe any of the data from the pandemic.
So all data is unreliable and in general, but the pandemic seems to be worse.
But let me give you another hypothesis that I'm not saying this hypothesis is true.
That's what makes it a hypothesis.
I'm going to tell you that there's at least one other explanation that would chart exactly to the chart, or that would match the chart.
It's an obvious one, it's one that's proven beyond any doubt, and it's an alternate explanation for the excess deaths at exactly the same time.
Do you know what it is?
How many of you know what I'm going to say?
Now, I did have for a while a suspicion that our food supply changed.
In a bad way.
Maybe because we did something differently with fertilizer or preservatives because we were trying to protect the food supply when we worried that there wouldn't be enough.
Maybe.
But there's a cleaner, better hypothesis that maps to this completely, and it's loneliness.
The pandemic created a massive loneliness spike, which persists after the pandemic.
I can tell you that the number of people I see per day On average is nowhere near it was during the pandemic.
I just have way less human contact.
Maybe two days a week.
I don't see anybody.
Did you know that?
I don't see anybody.
I like my house.
So maybe I see my dog.
But if I don't have plans, I just don't run into anybody because I work alone and then do my thing and go to bed.
So in my case, I'm not suffering from loneliness.
You know, I, I like a lot of alone time, so it's not bad, but I can feel it.
And the pandemic definitely changed me.
Now, um, did you know that, uh, if you, if you Google it, you're going to find out that, uh, loneliness is really deadly.
And here's the second correlation, but you say to me, but Scott, everybody got lonely during the pandemic.
So why is it only the people who got shots who are dying?
Cause they would be the loneliest.
If you, if you got massively, um, you know, boosted it's because you were already in that older situation where there's loneliness and you probably increased your loneliness even more because now you're like, Oh, I can't, can't be around people.
I gotta get boosted.
So I would think that the people who, who were likely to get the most shots, Would also be the loneliest, because they would socially distance the most aggressively.
Now, given that we know loneliness causes cardio problems, mental health, and all of those issues, and that's exactly what the graph shows, why would you say it's the shot?
If you have a known cause that maps to it perfectly, why would you say it's the shot?
Here's my hypothesis.
Even though we all know that loneliness kills, I don't think we know how quickly or how decisively it kills.
So my suspicion is that we have a collective blind spot, because even if you know on a, let's say, scientific level, yeah, I know, loneliness will kill people.
I don't think you know how quickly.
So I'm just going to put it out there.
You don't know how quickly it kills you unless you've experienced it.
Let's do a little test.
Those of you who have experienced profound loneliness, if you've ever had it in your life, didn't you want to be dead?
You tell me.
Didn't you want to be dead when you were profoundly lonely?
And didn't you feel less healthy?
Of course you did.
Now, why would we ignore that?
No, and let me say this as clearly as I can.
I don't have any reason to believe these shots were healthy.
I'm not defending the shots.
I'm saying the data is unreliable.
And I don't trust anybody who's overlooking the most obvious and proven connection with excess mortality, which is if you spike people's loneliness, there's going to be more deaths in every domain, from heart attacks to self-harm to overdoses.
Every domain should go up from loneliness.
I don't know if every category goes up from shots.
Is there more suicide because people got shots?
Because there's more suicide.
So anyway, so again, it could be right.
And I think that we have every reason to suspect the shots have potentially catastrophic effects.
Potentially.
I'm not the expert.
So I'm not, not, I don't want to diminish the risk.
I'm just saying that we have to be really careful looking at this kind of data.
That's all.
Here's another one they should have asked me.
There's another study.
It says when you brag about how busy you are, people think you're an idiot.
In other words, if when you're talking to people, you keep talking about how busy you are, it makes them think you're incompetent.
So what does that remind you of?
So now we know that when people complain about being victims of all the work, they're judged as incompetent, not as awesome heroes with a lot of work.
That's DEI.
Now, DEI is, of course, nothing about being overworked, but it's a victim mentality.
What do non-minorities think about people who complain about the need for DEI?
It makes you look incompetent.
It makes you look incompetent.
Now, that has to be factored in.
We now have science that says the whiners look incompetent.
Did you have to do that science?
Could you not have just asked me, Hey Scott, what do you think of people always complaining about having too much work or really complaining about anything all the time?
I would say, well, wouldn't want to work with them.
Wouldn't want to hire them.
That's for sure.
So yeah, I think that DEI should make people think that the People who are concerned about it are incompetent, and that's what I observe that to be true.
Meanwhile, in New York City, Mayor Adams is working with ICE to try to figure out how to get rid of their migrants that they think are too many, while at the same time they're a sanctuary city.
So not only do the Democrats create sanctuary cities, But now they're trying to figure out a way to thwart the Sanctuary City because the Sanctuary City is destroying the city.
Don't you think it would be smarter to say, hey, why don't we, uh, why don't we just change our policy?
Why don't we not be a Sanctuary City if this is a problem?
Nope.
Turns out you're getting just what you asked for.
So I say, get out of the cities.
I think Jack Posobiec has been saying that longer.
Just get away.
You can't save the cities.
I feel quite confident that the major cities are gone.
And you should get away from them as soon as you can.
We'll build new cities where you have a chance of succeeding.
But the current cities, I don't think there's any chance of saving them.
And I don't think there should be.
I mean, I don't think city living was ever what we were meant to experience.
Have you ever lived in a, like a high traffic city?
It's definitely exciting.
You got lots of stuff to do, but my God, the traffic will kill you.
If you could do one thing to make yourself happier, reduce that two hours a day you're sitting in traffic.
That'll really help you.
All right.
Well, DEI is dying in some places, but I think it's only going to be the red states.
So, this week the University of North Carolina, they voted to get rid of their DEI policies.
And that will affect 17 public universities across the state.
So, why exactly would they cancel DEI?
Did they give reasons?
I would assume that it's because it's considered racist, and that they're trying to get rid of racism.
So the blue states are instituting DEI to get rid of racism, and the red states are getting rid of DEI to get rid of racism.
Maybe we should get together and decide, what is it that gets rid of racism?
Or do they just like racism against certain classes of people?
I would argue that I got canceled for basically doing what the University of North Carolina just did right in front of you, which is to say, if DEI is someplace, you should not be there.
Now their version is, oh, we're going to get rid of the DEI.
My version is, if you don't get rid of the DEI, I'm not going to your fucking school.
Is that the same?
Aren't we on the same page?
I'll say it again.
The University of North Carolina says we want to get rid of DEI to improve the school, make it a better place to go for at least white people.
And I say, yes, yes, I will go there because you got rid of DEI.
Now, how's that different for me advising people?
If you're white, stay away from DEI environments.
That's bad for you.
But likewise, on the other side of the coin, if you're a black American or LGBTQ or one of the groups that can be favored by DEI, you should run toward it as hard as you can.
Your best career option is to go where people favor you, not where people are overtly discriminating against you.
So when I say get the fuck out, That's what I mean.
Same thing that the University of North Carolina just said.
No, you can't be in the same environment with this DEI stuff.
It doesn't work.
So in their case, they got rid of the DEI.
I didn't have power to get rid of DEI.
So I say, if you don't have the power to, leave.
So now you've got 17 public universities in North Carolina that would be an option for you.
If you're a white candidate.
I'd love to know where all the options are that a white candidate can apply.
Wouldn't you?
And I'll add Asian Americans.
I assume it's the same issue.
So where's my list of sanctuary colleges?
Where's my issue?
Where's my list of sanctuary?
And by the way, you need to call them sanctuary.
Where's my sanctuary corporations?
I'll bet there's not one in the fortune 500.
I'll bet there's not one.
Um, well maybe there is.
Yeah.
Maybe Tesla or something, but even Tesla has a DEI group, don't they?
Yeah.
Maybe there's none.
Don't know about that for sure.
All right.
Um, Apparently our government hid from us that a few weeks ago there was some Jordanians in a box truck who tried to get access to Quantico Marine Corps base in Virginia and armed guards stopped them.
But really?
A box truck?
I assume a box truck is something that carries a big load?
And if they didn't belong there, why did they need a big truck?
I saw this story characterized as a dry run.
Were they trying to see if they could get a big truck through the gates of a highly secured place, just so next time it'll be filled with explosives and they know how to do it?
Did that just happen to?
How in the world are we not going to have a major event before the election?
You know, the only thing keeping us safe at the moment is mutually assured destruction.
Because if there is a major event, America has created one pattern which I think nobody's missed.
If you send some people to our country to break some shit in our country, we'll destroy your entire nation.
I think we've made that very clear, have we not?
I think Israel is doing a good job of sending that message to Hamas.
If you attack us, we'll destroy your whole country, which looks like what's happening.
All right.
Rasmussen did a poll about replacing Biden, and apparently 48% of Democratic voters say they would approve of replacing him.
Wait, that was in February, but now the number is 54.
More than half of Democratic voters would be okay with replacing Biden months before the election.
Has that ever been asked before?
Has there ever been a need for pollsters to even ask the question?
I'm seeing a message that Ukraine is attacking Russian early warning radar with American weapons now, meaning that they're attacking them in Russian territory.
So is Ukraine intentionally using American weapons in Russian territory to guarantee that the UK and France and the United States put boots on the ground?
That's what it looks like, doesn't it?
Doesn't it look like Ukraine is trying to cause a bigger war with Russia?
Because if they don't, it's going to get settled.
So they need to make it bigger, which means they need Russia to go bigger.
This is all pretend.
It's like this pretend war.
Everything about this war looks wrong to me.
You know, I suppose you could say that about all wars, but sometimes they look like they have a reason.
Not this time.
I mean, the reason looks like it's profit.
All right.
You know, the movie The Apprentice, there was a hit piece on Trump and the movie's been made, but they went to the Cannes Film Festival and nobody wanted to distribute it.
And the thinking is that it won't be distributed because Trump already said he would sue the shit out of them.
One of the claims is that he violently raped his ex-wife, Ivana, and Ivana says it never happened.
So, I think Trump has a pretty good lawsuit there, don't you?
There were only two people in the room, and they both say it didn't happen.
And then it's in a movie.
That's a pretty good case, I would think.
Seems like a good case.
It looks like election interference as well.
So I think it's smart that no distributor wants to touch it.
But I also think it's probably a terrible movie.
I mean, I saw a clip, I was like, that doesn't look like him.
There's a concern now that Hollywood movies are not mentioning climate change enough.
So there's some group of authors Who surveyed 250 movies from 2013 to 2022 and they found out that only some of them mentioned the risk of climate change and they'd like to change that.
They'd like your movies to reflect what they call a reality.
Now, who could we talk to to determine if they're trying to gaslight us on climate change or if they're trying to save the world Who could sort this out for us?
Okay, I have an idea.
There are some preschool children in Finland who have been trained to spot propaganda.
Could we maybe offer them to come over here and sort this out for us?
Because they've been taught by their teachers, who know how to tell fake news from real news.
Yeah, they can tell!
So, let's bring those well-trained preschool kids here.
And see what they say about the movies not having enough climate change in them.
Now you're all aware that the CIA, famously and well-documented, and this is not a conspiracy theory, it's all well understood, did try to influence, successfully, American movies to make us more patriotic and, you know, live a certain lifestyle because they thought it was good for the country.
And it worked.
You know, all the John Wayne movies probably were Primarily to make you join the military, or at least think the military is awesome.
So, yes, this looks like a huge propaganda brainwashing kind of thing.
I don't know if I mentioned this, but I was watching a bunch of clips of John Eastman.
He's the now disbarred attorney that worked with Trump on the 2020 stuff, and he was taken down for By the bar for helping Trump, basically.
He's got some videos in which he's giving a speech at the Michigan Fair Elections meeting, and his story's about election irregularities.
I listened only for the first 10 minutes, and I had to walk away, because my head was exploding.
Now, I believe that his claims, the ones I'm going to tell you about, are not questioned.
I think these are things that are a matter of record.
It's just that we don't talk about it.
Give me some examples.
One example he gave is that there was some people who said their drop box was really a bunch of people who were harvesting ballots from the nearby college.
So they were stopping people as they walked by and getting them to vote.
And they called it a drop box, but it was just a balloting, I don't know if there was a box there or not, but it was just a balloting, ballot harvesting operation.
Was that legal?
No, no.
But it wasn't, you know, maybe a big enough thing to change things.
How about the, who approved the drop boxes?
Apparently they were approved not by the legislators in their states, which is illegal.
But all those votes were counted.
Because, hey, it's a pandemic.
So these are all things which are sort of in this gray area of clearly being illegal, but we were bending the rules a little bit because of the pandemic.
So is it really illegal if it was an emergency?
Yes.
Yes.
From a legal standpoint, it's illegal.
How about the one story that finally just ended me?
Is that, uh, there was a law that said you can't collect votes from nursing homes.
I forget which state might've been Wisconsin.
You can't give us from nursing homes because you would basically be manipulating the votes because they don't know what they're doing in there.
Uh, and that rule was dropped during the pandemic because of COVID.
And when they dropped the rule, they knew exactly what would happen.
And the voting rate for nursing homes went from normally maybe 20%.
To 100%, including the memory care unit.
That's right.
The dementia Alzheimer's unit, where the people don't even know their own names, recorded a 100% voting rate.
So, was that legal?
Well, probably not.
Were there enough people involved in just the nursing home thing to have changed the result in the state?
Yes.
And these are just a few examples.
How many examples do you think he has?
Yeah, you've heard lots more, right?
So you've got Zuckerberg spending $400 million on things.
Yeah, this is the most rigged election in the history of rigged elections.
It's just that Yeah, the Democrats can still fall back to the courts, which are also handcuffed.
Didn't do anything about it.
So therefore there was no fraud.
This is the most massively fraudulent situation you've ever seen in your life.
And they did it right in front of you and probably will do it again.
That would be my guess.
So, um, did I hear that, uh, Sidney Powell, um, Has been cleared of all Texas allegations by the Texas Bar and she's rebarred.
Is that a word?
Do you get disbarred and then rebarred?
So we're slowly finding out that everything we were told for the last several years was a lie.
Just everything.
Everything about the pandemic.
Everything about the election.
Everything about immigration.
Everything about Ukraine.
It was all a lie.
Everything.
All the important things were just a bunch of lies.
John Eastman and Sidney Powell got taken down with that.
I think they will be I expect both of them to be reconstituted eventually.
Senator Tim Scott had a provocative statement.
He said that President Biden has resegregated schools under his administration.
Now, what he meant was that by putting pressure against the alternative schools, he made it harder for a black person to go to a good school.
So if they ended up staying in their bad school, it was highly black, so de facto segregation, even though that's not the intention.
When I first heard this, I thought, oh, that's provocative.
That'll leave a mark.
But the more I thought about it, it's too conceptual.
Too conceptual.
It's not really the kind of thing you hold in your mind and then act on.
You get it.
Oh, I get it.
He was against Um, you know, the, the charter schools.
So if you're against charter schools, the effect is more segregation to happen somewhat organically.
So therefore, now that's too many leaps.
Here's what works.
People coming across the border are going to kill you.
Well, now I know what to do.
That's pretty clear.
Right?
So, so, uh, I'll say again that Senator Scott, solid, solid senator.
I'm glad he's in office.
But man, he can't campaign.
He's just not, he's not Trump-level campaigner.
And I think Trump needs that.
I saw Howard Kurtz, who was on Fox, saying that Trump is showing that he cares about the concerns of people in his visits to the Bronx.
Being evidence that he's willing to go where the people have the greatest needs and at least speak to them.
At least that's how it looks.
And then Biden was at Morehouse College at about the same time talking about victimhood.
So one is, Trump, I'm here to help if I can.
Here's what I've done.
And the other is, oh, you can never succeed because of all the victimhood.
You know, if you're black in America, you'll be discriminated against.
So What could be more damaging to black Americans than telling them they can't succeed because of discrimination?
I can't even think of anything that would be a worse crime against black Americans since, what, Jim Crow and slavery itself.
So this is the reason I was talking about King Randall's program, where he teaches young black kids.
How to shake hands and how to change their oil and change a tire and how to do a job interview and how to talk to adults and all these things.
Just super, super good qualities to learn when you're young.
And I'll say it again, if you focus on individual accomplishments, none of this other stuff matters.
If you're, you know, in any of the disadvantaged groups, just make yourself valuable.
It's what everybody does.
Now you might, you might in fact be starting a little bit behind because of systemic racism, but it's so easily defeatable by simply adding talents to your existing talents until you're irresistible, right?
Yet you could very clearly in say five years, Uh, assemble a set of talents that no white person can match.
It's just your, your unique set of things.
And if somebody needs that, well, you're the one.
So everything is about individual success and everything bad is about, Oh, this group is having some discrimination.
What does nope mean?
I get the worst trolls.
Nope.
All right.
So Iran's building some more nuclear missiles.
I don't know what makes them nuclear missiles.
They don't have nukes yet, but they're getting close to that as well.
And the story is, I guess Steve Guest was reporting on that, that Biden is urging Britain and France to let Iran ramp up its production of nuclear missiles.
Now, do you think that's true?
The Biden administration is going easy on Iran and their nuclear program?
It does look like that's true.
Yeah.
So here are the things that Biden has done for the Middle East.
He spent half a billion dollars building a pier to deliver aid to Gaza, but it turns out it only delivered aid to the Hamas fighters because they stole it all.
And then we were finding out that it was built in a place that you should not use that pure technology because it's not designed to survive the waves that are normal in that beach.
That's right.
The solution they used is known not to be useful and it's already broken and it's sinking and we wasted a half a billion dollars and I think there were some casualties involved.
Probably.
I saw somebody else make this speculation.
Probably, at some point, there was an engineer who said the following, oh, this technology is meant for more of a protected beachhead without big waves.
It will not work with the normal waves here.
This is a surfing beach.
They built an artificial pier on a surfing beach.
It's a surfing beach.
Because the waves are so big.
And then the waves broke it.
Like the engineers didn't know that?
Of course they did.
Which means the engineers were over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over-over- So let's see.
He failed.
He is aiding Iran's nuclear program.
He built a facility for half a billion dollars whose only functional outcome is feeding the enemy.
And he's downplaying the attacks of the terrorists at our U.S.
bases.
And he also denied some smart bombs to Israel.
So he fed Hamas, denied bombs to Israel, and gave Iran comfort in building nukes.
You know, it would be hard to imagine anybody failing harder at that.
But here's some other failures.
The Amuse account had this list.
So think of Biden's legacy.
So he's got the Gaza Peer thing.
He's got the Afghanistan withdrawal.
Everything with Iran is wrong.
You know, giving them their money back, etc.
And then October 7th happens.
Everything about Ukraine is wrong.
The Houthis we didn't handle well.
Syria, not so good.
Let me ask you this.
you You know, I know you're all partisans.
You've already chosen your favorite potential president.
And I think you could argue forever who is like the best president in history.
And I would say Trump needs to be on the list, at least in the conversation.
But you could argue who's the best.
Like that's easy.
You know, you could always say, well, no, you know, it's, it was George Washington or it was Jefferson or, or, uh, you could go down the list, but here's what would be hard to argue.
Biden is the worst president we've ever had.
Am I wrong?
I mean, Jimmy Carter used to be our standard for that, but Biden has surpassed him by a mile.
It's not even close.
Not even close.
Yeah.
So I feel like we could say with some confidence he's our worst president.
Well, over in the Middle East, the Battle of Rafah is happening.
Southern part of Gaza.
And Israel is now going in.
Apparently there's a report about 45 Palestinians were killed in a, quote, tragic mistake, says Netanyahu.
He called for an investigation into the deaths.
OK.
Yeah, I think the big story out of Rafah is going to be the news blackout.
So if Israel doesn't get rid of all the news, They're not doing it right, and I'm sure they have.
The danger itself would get rid of the news.
So, if nobody knows what they're doing, they can get their job done, even though we all know there are going to be civilian casualties, because that's how war works.
So, that's happening.
Did you know that one of the guys running for office in the UK, Rishi Sunak, I guess he's running for Prime Minister, He's vowed to introduce mandatory national service for 18 year olds.
Now national service, I think he means in the military.
Why would they do that now?
And didn't France make some noise about the baby boots on the ground?
You know, they might send some advisors or something there.
Are we moving like inch at a time?
Toward American boots on the ground?
It feels like there's some entity or power or powers who is pushing this toward more of a land war.
Now, I'd love to think that we're so clever that we're using the threat of activating a land war involving, you know, France, UK and the United States, that that would be maybe to scare Putin and that They don't really plan to do that, but if Putin thinks we are, he'll take the situation more seriously.
All right, so that's a little worrisome.
I certainly don't want any wars with Ukraine.
I saw, I wish I could remember his name, it's like Yuri Yuri somebody.
He says all wars are based on imagination.
That we have enough food, enough land for everybody.
So we're not fighting for resources like we did in the old days.
We're fighting over our imaginations.
So Ukraine is the imagination of who should own it.
I mean, there are real things like national defense and resources and stuff like that.
But at the public level, what we're talking about, and of course the public has to support a war or it doesn't happen.
The public is being told that it's about who rightly should own Ukraine and democracy and Putin bad and all that.
That's all imaginary.
This is a completely optional war.
It's optional because somebody is making money or getting an advantage or we want to get the Get the jump on Putin and he doesn't want us to.
But it's all because we imagine stuff and then we go to war.
All right.
Yeah, that's a different Yuri.
Yuri Geller is a different Yuri.
That's not what I was talking about.
Um...
What's the only survivor's name in the state of...
Okay.
Alright, ladies and gentlemen.
UK here.
Rishi is all perception, narrative, creation.
Yeah, so it's probably not real.
What is this?
I'm seeing a message somebody wants me to read.
Somebody's doing the math about Hamas fighters versus civilians.
And the claim is that it's the, that the IDF is doing a good job of protecting civilians as, as best you can in a war zone.
Now, I don't believe any statistics that come out of a war zone.
So, um, I wouldn't take that too seriously, but it's not impossible.
I mean, it's, it's within the realm of, Yeah, easy to imagine that they're doing a good job in saving civilians.
It's easy to imagine, because it would be in their best interest, and they probably do have the ability to minimize them.
So, all right.
I saw the name there.
Maybe is it Oh, maybe it's Hari.
I have this, like, partial memory.
Whose name is H-A-R-I?
And did he write... Did he write Sapiens?
Was it the author of Sapiens?
There we go.
Yes, Yuvi Harari.
There we go.
Yuvi Harari.
So, he's been getting a lot of attention saying stuff about, you know, the future.
But I loved his take that all wars are imaginary now.
They really are.
I've been on that page for a long time, but I've never heard anybody say it quite as succinctly that all wars are imaginary, because there's no shortage of stuff for all of us.
All right.
Let me read this.
A YouTuber, he says, Lock Dirty Don up already for January 6th insurrection if we don't want to see worse in the future.
All right.
JKJ Live.
I'm sorry that your news sources did this to you, but I'll just keep this simple.
Republicans don't stage insurrections without guns.
That doesn't happen.
Now you were told there was an insurrection because they were trying to essentially rig the election and get away with it, which they did.
They did.
They rigged it and got away with it.
Now that's pretty well understood at this point.
So I can't tell if you're a total troll or you just have a news problem.
I hear there's some Finnish children who could clear that up for you.
They're really good at spotting fake news.
They've been taught by their teachers who totally know how to do it.
All right, I'm going to say bye now to the YouTube and Rumble and X people.
I'm going to talk to my special subscribers on Locals.
Thanks for joining.
I'll see you the same time tomorrow.
But stick with me, Locals people, if you want to hang out a little bit more.
