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, Miracle Drugs Side Effects, Debunked Climate Science, AI Design Limit, Brain Hack, Apple AI, Flu Deaths Scam, Liberal Funded Non-Partisan News Initiative, Regulating Regulators, News Industry Capture, Biden's Peace Proposal, Convicted Felon Trump, Outlaw Label, Biden's Hurr Audio, The Joker's Playbook, Elon Musk, David Sacks, George Soros, Alex Soros, Jury Bias, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of Human Civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and I'm pretty sure you've never had a better time in your life and if you'd like to take this experience up two levels That I'm pretty sure nobody's ever seen before.
Well, all you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass of tankard gel, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and you need it badly.
happens now So good Well, I was just going to fire up my beloved locals people so I can see their comments separately.
And where are you, beloved locals people?
There you are.
There you are.
Huh.
Okay.
That's interesting.
Let me just check one thing.
Live.
Oh, there's a new menu where I can find the live stuff.
Perfect.
It's an improvement.
I like improvements.
Well, we got lots of news to cover today.
Aren't you glad you're here?
Happy Saturday.
Happy June.
If you are subscribing to the Dilbert comic, which never ended, even though it was canceled, it just got better, but it's behind the subscription wall here at, here at the, uh, scottadams.locals or also on the X platform.
And if you were subscribing, you would see, uh, the Dilbert comic that started with the following panel today.
Doctor, doctor is talking to Dilbert and telling Dilbert quote, your testicles are filled with microplastics.
Now, only subscribers will know what happens next.
But let me tell you, it can only happen in the cartoon universe.
Fun, fun, fun.
All right, let's talk about sketchy science.
Am I the only person who has noticed that whenever there's a miracle drug, the potential side effects always seem to be in this narrow area?
For example, Here's a new drug that will make bald men regrow their hair.
You know it's going to make your dick not work, right?
Let's just automatic.
If it's going to let you have your hair back so you can get your good looks, so to speak, then it's not going to let you use it.
Nope, it's going to take that away from you.
And now we find out there are reports that people taking Ozempic are losing weight, looking good, except their hair is falling out.
Now this has not been confirmed by any science.
This is anecdotal.
But it's in the news today that a lot of hairdressers are seeing it.
The experts are saying it might not be a permanent thing.
It might have less to do with the drug and more to do with the rapid weight loss.
So apparently if you're losing weight, you're more likely to have your hair fall out.
But they think it might grow back after you get off the Ozempic.
In other words, when you start gaining your weight back.
So you can either have hair or you can be thin, but I'm sorry, you can't have both.
Unless, well, I guess there is an alternative.
I've heard of it.
It's speculative.
It's speculative.
There's a thing called, I don't know if I have the words right, eating right and exercise.
Have you heard of it?
I know it's harder.
But if you want to do it the easy way, your hair might fall out.
Just be aware of that.
Oh, and by the way, it'll make you lose your libido and get sick.
So if you were, let's say, trying to impress your spouse with your weight loss, and you're thinking, looking pretty good now, and your spouse says to you, you know, what happened to your hair?
Well, okay, my hair fell out, but look at my body.
And then your spouse says, well, you got a good point.
Your body looks good.
Do you want to have some sex?
I'd love to, but my libido has fallen off.
Oh, well, maybe you could just, you know, I don't know how to say this, but could you maybe give me some sex?
I'd love to, but I'm also suffering from nausea from a side effect.
So apparently the universe has conspired that if there's one reason that you can't get laid, And you fix that one reason, it's going to give you a new reason not to get laid right away.
I don't know why that happens, but it's so consistent.
It's like a natural law of the universe.
There's also a sleep apnea drug that is not approved, but the study found there's this thing called AD-109 that if you have a mild case of sleep apnea, it can somehow help you sleep through the night.
So this is amazing and great.
And everything about this is positive, right?
It's going to be a new drug.
It's going to cure my mild sleep apnea, which I have.
So, it's all upside, huh?
Let's see, is there any criticism of it?
Oh, somebody named Kuhlman explains, hmm, they left out of the study report the oxygen saturation of the person using the drug.
Now, given that the problem was sleep apnea, Is that it lowers your oxygen levels during the night.
If you had a drug that stopped your mild sleep apnea, it's really only purpose would be to improve your oxygen saturation.
And so if I were going to brag about a drug that helped with sleep apnea right at the top of the article, I'd put something like your blood, your blood oxygen is going to be a hundred percent.
But I wouldn't leave it out.
How the hell do you leave that out?
Like the only thing that actually mattered to the study?
Sketchy science.
But that's sketchy science and science that is there to mess with you.
But there's also a category of science that's my favorite.
So I'm not objective about science.
There's some types of science I really love.
And then there's other types that I'm like, hmm, not so much.
But let me tell you the kind of science I like.
It's the kind that agrees with what I'm already doing.
Yes, that's called accurate science.
Yeah.
So if the science says, the best thing you could possibly do is sit in a room with ring lights on and talk into a microphone every morning, and it will make you immortal.
I'll be like, really?
That's great!
Because I sit in front of ring lights every morning and I talk into a microphone.
I'm gonna live forever!
That's called good science.
Don't confuse that with the crappy stuff that says if you do bad things like you're doing right now it'll kill you.
No!
Ignore that stuff.
You only want the science that says what you're already doing is genius.
And here's some science that I like a lot.
Apparently, those who've had six servings of fruit and vegetables a day were 34% less likely to experience poor thinking skills later on.
That's right.
Your fruits and your vegetables will make you smarter later in life.
And they say that drinking orange juice is linked to a 47% lower risk of memory problems with age.
So, how much do I like this?
Well, let me tell you.
I've been pretty pissed off for a few years now about the fact that Jordan Peterson is obviously so much smarter than I am.
But tortoise and the hare, people.
Tortoise and the hare.
As soon as I'm done with this, I'm probably going to eat a fruit or a vegetable, as I do.
But what's Jordan Peterson doing?
He's eating meat on his carnivore diet, which apparently is Doing great things for his health in the short term, in the short term, but already I can feel the gap is closing.
You've probably seen it too.
You know, he started out like a hundred percent smarter than me.
I think he's probably no more than 96, 97% smarter than me now.
I mean, you could already feel the difference and I'm going to eat vegetables until More people watch my program because that's how it works.
So suck on that, Peterson.
All right.
Apparently the whole climate science thing is falling apart.
And I'll say again, the number one thing that hurt climate science and made people more skeptical, or should have, Is learning that the number one reason why you should believe climate science has been completely debunked.
And I haven't seen anybody say this on any kind of legitimate news.
But how many years have you listened to assholes say to you, Scott, 98% of scientists are all on the same side and therefore how in the world could it be wrong?
And then we live through the pandemic.
And we see that as long as scientists get paychecks, the entity that's above the scientist who's paying them will never take chances.
So here's what's wrong with the system.
Corporations can't take chances.
They kind of got to go with the norm, whatever the norm is, they got to go with it.
So your employer, who's going to be a larger entity, that has to go with the norms, always has to.
You can't really buck what everybody thinks if you're a company trying to make money.
Everybody will say, hmm, I think I'll shop somewhere else.
So in general, you know, if you're a big entity, you've got to do what the public thinks is true, in general.
But if you were a rogue scientist who made your own money and worked for yourself and nothing could affect your income, Well, then you could disagree with the consensus, and people would.
But we see that in the real world, there are no independent scientists or doctors.
Well, that's an exaggeration.
In general, 98% of them are taking a paycheck from somebody, which means they really don't have the option to tell you the truth as they see it.
Just think about that.
We've developed a system that, by its design, Eliminates the possibility of the individuals telling you the truth if it disagreed with the consensus.
Can't do it.
The incentive to just go along is 100%.
The incentive to buck the system is zero.
You don't get anything out of that.
So, since climate change science was really always, well, you can't do the science yourself, but you can certainly trust us, because we're all on the same team, and we've looked at it a hundred different ways, and every time we look at it, no matter what way we look at it, doesn't matter what window we're looking through, which thing we're studying, miraculously, it all seems to support climate science, or at least the alarm of climate science.
But now that you know that the more routine situation is 100% of the experts will lie routinely, predictably, reliably, as long as they have a boss.
The only thing you need to make the whole system not work is that the experts have bosses.
That's it.
That's all you need to sell the public anything that isn't true.
Bosses.
You don't need anything else.
So as long as you've got bosses in the pandemic, all the professionals said, oh, wear your mask and take your vaccines.
As long as the climate scientists have bosses, and they need, well, bosses also, and they need to get grants, right?
They need to apply for grants, which ends up being like your boss, in a sense, in a virtual sense.
Under that condition, you would expect that 98% of the experts not only could be lying, But largely guaranteed.
Because they're going to agree with everything that comes out that agrees with the narrative.
Everything.
And even if something were completely true, you kind of have to expect that some of the science would be not reliable.
But I don't think that happens.
I think anything that supports the narrative, all the peer reviewers go, that looks good to me.
Supporting the narrative.
But we can also see that predictions do not match reality.
The models are being exposed as garbage.
You see money distorting things.
Zero Hedge has a great article that I reposted.
Owen Gregorian has a little write-up on that.
And you really need to spend a minute looking at a skeptic's path through the science.
Once you read what the skeptics say about it, It's really hard to believe the 98% of experts.
If you just look at the two arguments next to each other, you know, just spend a week looking at all the pro-climate change stuff, and then just spend a week looking at nothing but the critics and the skeptics.
The critics and the skeptics have a much better argument.
Has anybody gone through that experience?
I've done that.
I've, like, immersed myself in both worlds.
And when you come out, there is one that's better.
It's not even close.
It's not close.
You know, I've told you about the documentary effect.
That's what caused climate change.
Al Gore's documentary.
He put it in a documentary, and documentaries, by their nature, are persuasive even when they're not true.
How many of the scientists and the people running your government know that if they saw it in a documentary, they should be treated like they've seen nothing?
How many of them know that?
None.
Basically none, unless they're also hypnotists and study persuasion, which would be rare.
No, they actually think that if the documentary was convincing from beginning to end, they saw something like reality or truth.
Nope, there is nothing like that happening in a documentary.
In fact, I just heard that there was the group Salem, I think has something to do with distributing the 2,000 mules documentary.
How many of you watched the 2,000 mules documentary and when you were done said, well, there was definitely some cheating.
Yeah, I guess they've proved it with this 2,000 mules.
How many of you thought that was true because you saw the documentary?
Now, I don't know what's true.
I can just tell you that that hasn't reached the level of credibility that we all wondered if it would.
It never did.
And at least one group is apologizing forever, having anything to do with it and removing it from their site.
So that doesn't mean it's wrong, by the way.
Doesn't mean it's wrong.
I'm just making the point that if you ever saw the documentary, you were convinced by it independently from whether it was true.
So how persuasive it is, is unrelated to how true it is.
You have to learn that.
That's the most important thing to learn.
Here's some dumb thing that I'm seeing lately.
I'm seeing some experts.
Oh, I should correct that.
I'm not sure exactly which experts have said this.
So there might be some smart experts I like who are saying it.
So I won't say they're dumb.
I will disagree with them.
The experts are saying that if you're a math major or you're in the technical sciences, the AI might take your job.
But if you're like an English major or you're in one of these communication, soft arts kind of jobs, the AI might have trouble catching up and you'll still have plenty to do, even working with AI, because the AI will not have the language skills and the insights that you have as a Non-STEM major.
Does that sound right to you?
Does that track?
Do you really think that the technologists are going to be worth nothing because AI will do it all?
Or do you think that the English majors are not the easiest for AI to replace?
Well, here's my take on that.
So far, I'm sort of a hybrid kind of an individual, in the sense that I've had some experience with technology, but mostly I work in a communication field.
So, I've kind of straddled both domains enough that I got a little bit of visibility in each one.
I've also spent quite a bit of time playing with a variety of AI apps to see what they can and cannot do.
And I'll tell you, the single most obvious conclusion is that they can't do anything without the person standing right there.
And if you didn't understand a little bit about technology, you'd be even more helpless using it.
So I think that AI will only ever be a tool for people who are technically proficient.
In other words, they're going to have to understand how to use the AI, when to use which one, which ones work with other AIs, what types of errors they have, how to correct them, how to find the right super prompts, how to keep them updated, and on and on and on.
So I see that there's, in my opinion, people with technical expertise will never go out of style.
Because you just won't be able to use AI in any technical way, unless the person using it is a technical person.
Let me put it this way.
If you gave me AI and said, Scott, build a new network protocol that makes your internal network work twice as fast.
I'm not sure I could ask the right questions.
And I'm not sure I would know if the AI came up with a better idea.
So you really need to be the person monitoring the AI.
I don't think the technical jobs will go away.
I do think, you know, some very specific things like, you know, maybe some higher level math will just be completely computer.
That makes sense.
But let's look at the soft skills, communication skills, because this is really important.
If there are any young people, or even if you're in the middle of your career, you're thinking, oh, where am I safe from AI?
I think AI will replace Maybe half of the soft arts.
But I do think that there's a cap on how good AI can be.
And I'm going to be really arrogant to make this next point.
I didn't have another way to do it.
I thought about, how can I do this without being super arrogant?
And I thought, OK, there's no way to do it.
So since I think the point is worth making, because there's value to it, I'll just be super arrogant.
I hope you can forgive me.
AI can't replace me.
That's the arrogant part.
Have you seen AI try to write jokes?
Can't do it.
Do you think it will someday be able to write jokes with better training?
I don't think so.
Do you know why?
Because I couldn't teach you to do it.
Do you think I could take the smartest among you, who has, let's say, natural ability, and I could train you to do what I do?
I don't think so.
Nobody's ever done it.
In the history of humanity, nobody's ever done that.
There's some things you can imitate, and you can learn tools.
Like if I taught you how to paint, I could certainly teach you some of the tricks of painting.
But I couldn't make you... Van Gogh can't make you Van Gogh.
Rembrandt can't make you Rembrandt.
Da Vinci can't make you Da Vinci.
So why do you think we can train the machines to do that?
Because the machines are this big average of us, at least the current versions, these LLMs.
No, I think it's capped.
I don't think the machines will ever, in their current design.
There might be some future, completely different design that gets there.
But as we know it, it doesn't really have a chance of replacing me.
I thought it did.
But the more I work with it, I can say, no, it looks like there's a natural gap.
It's not that we haven't gotten there yet.
Now, I know how that sounds.
The biggest mistake that anybody's ever made forecasting technology is, well, it'll never get there.
The, it will never get there is the most wrong thing anybody's ever said about every part of technology.
There's always been somebody who says the plane won't fly.
You know, the computers will never be that fast.
Nobody's going to need a computer on their desk.
Yeah.
So there's a, there's a graveyard of people who made this kind of prediction.
But I'm going to make it based on observation and its design.
Design is destiny.
If we were designed differently, like maybe artificial general intelligence that we might have someday, then I would say, I don't know, maybe it can replace me.
But with its current design, I think there's a design limit that I don't know can be designed around.
So I think the people with communication skills At least half of them will easily be replaced, but the people in the top 5%, I just don't know that the technology can get there.
I think we'll use it as a tool.
Oh, by the way, I used AI for the first time, I think.
In actual production way.
So this may be only exciting to me.
So if you read Dilbert, you've been reading it forever, you know that I'm always running out of angles.
Like angles of view.
Like, okay, you're looking over Dilbert's shoulder.
Okay, you're looking at it from outside the room.
Okay, here's one from outside the building.
And I rapidly run out of angles to choose from in my head.
So, the other day, I was drawing one that was just going to be Dilbert and Dogbert talking at home, and I told AI to draw me just a person sitting at a desk and a dog in the room.
And it drew one, and I said, okay, now do the same thing, except as if the camera angle is from six feet looking down.
And it did.
And I said, okay, that's good, but move this angle here, move that angle.
Now, it draws me a picture of a guy with a computer at an angle that I'd never drawn before.
But it was real easy just looking at it to draw it, you know, once you saw the perspective.
If you're a trained artist, you just have to look at it and you can draw it.
But until I looked at it, my brain had never created that angle in my head, so I couldn't draw it.
I can only draw what I can imagine.
And I'd never imagined that angle before, so I couldn't draw it.
So you're going to see a comic on Sunday, this Sunday.
Look at the first two panels and you'll see it's a new level of graphic interest.
Came out really well.
I think I'll do a little more of that.
So that was a good example of AI being valuable.
All right, here's some signs you should have asked Scott.
We'll get to the politics real soon.
That there's all kinds of stuff in your body that can affect your mental health.
So it could be anything from your bacteria to inflammation to all this.
And they're learning that your mental state could be determined by your physical health and your metabolism and stuff.
To which I say, seriously?
You couldn't have just asked me?
Just ask me next time.
You don't have to do all this studying.
Yes.
And let me put it in, let me reframe it in a way that makes sense.
The reason that we think of our brain and our thoughts as being the thing that's happening inside our skull is that humans like to separate things into categories so that they can create things like, you know, jobs around that category.
So you've got a brain surgeon who's not as trained at maybe setting broken bones, etc.
So for practical reasons, we divide things into categories.
Here's your brain.
Here's your body.
Two different things.
But my reframe is this.
Your brain is not just the thing inside your skull.
Your brain is your whole body and your environment.
You've heard me say this before.
If you want to change your brain, you need to change your environment.
And that changes your body.
And then your body changes your brain.
So for example, it's well understood that if you go to the park and go out in nature, there seem to be some fairly immediate benefits to your mental health.
And that seems so, not only do you feel it when you do it, but all the science suggests.
Now, the way we usually think of that is, oh, my brain is in my head, and then I'm going to go to the park and I feel better.
Here's a better way to think of it.
The park is your brain.
The room that you didn't clean up, that's your brain.
The reason Jordan Peterson says clean your room is that's how you program your brain.
No, the room is your brain.
The park is your brain.
It's all part of the same system.
As soon as you realize that your brain is extended into everything you touch and experience, then suddenly your options for what to do about things become much fuller.
See, if you don't understand that the park is part of your brain and you're sad and you're sitting there, what are you going to do about it?
What are you going to do?
But if you say, oh, my brain's a problem and all I have to do is spend more time in the outdoor park part of my brain, I'll be fine.
You know exactly what to do.
So your brain is your environment.
Apple is reportedly going to enhance Siri, so it's got more AI stuff.
In the first version, we don't know when this will come out exactly.
Looks like iOS 18, maybe.
But you'll be able to give it commands that it can perform at first only with Apple's own apps.
So Apple has a messaging app, an email app, calculator app built in.
I guess Siri would be able to activate things within the apps.
So you can say things like the example given was you could have it record a meeting, you know, just have it record and then tell it to send those meeting notes by email to somebody.
You just name the person.
And, uh, I, I think I've told you before I sold my Apple stock, um, last year.
Because I thought Apple was not excelling at AI, and I was worried that they'd lost their juice.
That the jobs era just can't be reproduced.
Now, maybe it can.
Apple has been killing it over and over against expectations for decades.
So betting against them is kind of a sketchy thing.
But the reason I had their stock is because they were a monopoly.
I invested in them because they weren't competing, really.
Once you got locked into their ecosystem, you couldn't get out.
But now AI changes everything.
Elon Musk asked the other day on X, do you think X should make a phone?
Now, I don't know if he will, but if he did, it wouldn't be poking at apps with your finger.
I think it'd be whatever's the next generation after that.
Anyway, there was a report that TikTok might be secretly preparing to separate their code if they are forced to divest, so they would have something to sell to some entity in the United States who could then run it.
But they deny it publicly.
However, let me give you my Dilbert take on this.
If you're as rich as TikTok, And the likelihood that you will completely be out of business in the United States is very high.
Of course, they're working on separating the code.
They have to be ready for both of those possibilities.
And the financial implication of either path, either going out of business in the United States or selling the business to somebody in the United States, are enormous.
We're talking about billions of dollars.
You don't think that when billions are on the line, They're not gonna have somebody just getting ready for either opportunity.
Of course, of course.
Yeah, there's no chance that they're not preparing to divest.
They'd be a ridiculous company if they weren't doing that.
There's a study that says about one in three Americans know somebody who's died of a drug overdose, according to a new survey.
CBS News reporting.
But that reminded me of this.
Um, so one in three of you know somebody who's died of a drug overdose.
What does that tell you about drug overdoses?
Well, a lot of things, but number one, it tells you they're probably real, right?
When, when a study matches your observation, you say, well, that's probably real because I see it too.
I always use the example of science tells you that smoking cigarettes can give you lung cancer.
And sure enough, the people I know who had lung cancer, Smoke cigarettes.
Or tobacco.
So that matches.
But here's one that never matched.
There were 30,000 to 50,000 people dying of the seasonal flu before COVID.
And I saw somebody the other day saying, hey, why did all the COVID numbers disappear?
And they were speculating that the seasonal flu deaths were being added to the COVID deaths to pump up the number.
I don't think that's what was happening.
I think what happened was we found out that the seasonal flu numbers were never real because I've never met anybody who died of the seasonal flu.
You know what I mean?
And I don't think one in three people know anybody who personally who died of the seasonal flu, but 30 to 50,000 a year, that that's sort of the drunk driving number of deaths.
How many of you know somebody who died from drunk driving?
Pretty much all of you, right?
Pretty much everybody knows somebody directly or indirectly who died from drunk driving.
Either they were hit by one or they were one.
So that's real.
Drunk driving's real.
But I don't think seasonal flu deaths are real.
I think that they were always faking us with those numbers so we would buy the vaccinations, and that it was never real.
That's my hypothesis.
Because the disconnect between How much there was and the fact that I've never seen or heard of an example of it?
No, I'm not buying that.
And there's a reason they were fake.
We have some insight.
They were never counted in the past.
So what happened during the pandemic was not necessarily that they were adding those deaths to COVID.
It was that we learned for the first time By counting all the deaths and really keeping track that the flu deaths had always been an estimate based on excess mortality.
It was never based on counting the flu deaths and excess mortality is could be anything.
Yeah, so that yeah, I'm not sure if the seasonal flu deaths were ever real except maybe somebody who's 90.
All right.
Here's something that looked like a parody on just the news was reporting this.
Apparently the AP is going to partner with outlets funded by liberals to launch a nonpartisan news initiative.
Come on.
First of all, it's the AP.
And second of all, they're going to have a liberal funded nonpartisan news initiative.
That's not a thing.
Democrats are still stuck at the level of awareness where they think some of the news is real.
But those other people are lying to him.
Now, if you're stuck in that level of reality, nothing you do is going to be right.
Because it's a wrong view of reality.
The real reality is that all the news has always been fake all the time.
It's just that one side fakes it differently than the other.
Now, that's all the important stuff.
There's always lack of context, etc.
Now, how do I know this?
Well, I know it the same way everybody who's been in the news knows it.
I've been in the news so many times that I know what's true about myself, let's say, and I can tell that the news is wrong routinely, almost all the time.
At least there's context left out.
So yes, the news is not real.
Climate change is not reporting on what's real, even if it is real.
That's not why it's being reported.
The reason things get reported are completely unrelated to whether they're real.
You know, if you don't know that, that the corporate media is a way to control the country, it's not a way to inform the country, right?
The way we were taught when we were kids was that we have this elected government that is, you know, responsive to the citizens, and thank God we have the free press, because the free press acts like regulators.
It's almost like they regulate The government because they expose their bad things and then they have to change or go to jail.
That's what I was taught.
Here's the truth.
Everything that's regulated eventually gets captured by the, what they regulate.
If you're regulating a business, the business will eventually, cause it has all the money and the regulators are poor people.
They'll find some way to get their people on the regulator board or they'll say, you know, you haven't made much money as a regulator, but gosh, you're so experienced in this that if you were to ever quit the regulating board, we'd sure look at you as a high paid employee in the future.
That's for sure.
And so, by the way, while you're regulating and before you get this great job with us, we've got some things we'd like you to decide.
And if you decide the right way, well, we're definitely going to hire you in the future for high pay.
But if it goes the other way, I don't know.
I'm not sure if you're the kind of employee that we'd want to take a chance on.
So as long as the thing getting regulated has more money than the people regulating them, the regulators will eventually be owned by the regulated.
And we observe that everywhere.
Everywhere.
It's not something that's happened once, and so it's a big story because that one time it happened.
No, it's the universal thing.
It happens everywhere.
Is the FDA independent branch working for your benefit?
I doubt it.
I don't think so.
No.
Are any of the regulatory boards independent of the things that they're regulating?
I don't think so.
I doubt it.
Do you think Congress is independent of the industrial-military complex?
Not a chance!
No, they're supposed to be sort of in charge of it.
But no, the military-industrial complex has more money than politicians.
So what happens when that happens?
The regulators get regulated.
You know, it reverses.
So what happens with the news?
The news is supposed to be the regulators of our government.
But what really happened?
Well, our government, first of all, is basically a corporate entity, because it does what big corporations want it to do.
And what do big corporations do?
Well, they got a lot of money.
Do you think they're gonna let the news just say anything it wants?
Of course not!
Why do you think pharmaceutical companies are the main news advertisers?
Is it, as Tucker Carlson points out, is it because they'll sell more drugs?
No.
They might, but it's so they can control the news, so the news doesn't say stop taking these dangerous drugs.
That's why.
Yeah, so the news industry is not only obviously captured by both the Democrats and the corporate interests, but it only could have happened.
There wasn't another alternative.
In every case, the richer entity becomes in control of the less rich entity, and there's no exceptions to that in the long run.
We've never seen one in the history of humankind.
Whoever has the most money Ends up regulating the people who are supposed to regulate them.
Period.
And so the news couldn't possibly be independent by this point in our nation's history.
It's way too long.
For them to still be independent.
So you should assume that they're either owned by intelligence agencies or controlled by them in the important ways.
And you should assume that none of it's real and that everybody has an interest and the news is not even in the business of informing you.
It's just not even their business model.
All right.
I saw some companies are scaling back on Pride Month because there was a lot of blowback before.
And I have to wonder how that business meeting goes.
How do you think they described that or talked about it privately before they decided to quote, scale back on their LGBT, you know, gay pride month stuff?
I feel like it went like this.
Uh, Bob, we had a little blowback from the, uh, going to pro LGBT.
We're going to need to pull it back a little bit.
What do you mean?
How much?
Well, I think 9%.
We'd like you to act we like the stores to be 9% less gay I'm not even sure how to do that.
Yeah, I would just Instead of being full gay Just 9% less.
We're just gonna pull back a little bit and see what happens and then Then I think You know, there probably be follow-up questions.
All right.
I got a question boss What would be some examples of?
Of being 9% less gay so we don't get all the blowback again.
And the boss would say, well, um, let's not have, uh, our cashiers dressed in rainbow colors and twerking with the customers.
And I'd be like, no twerking.
That's way more than 9% cutting back.
And then the boss would say, well, you're right.
If we get rid of all the twerking at the cashier stations, that's going to be way more than 9% cutting back.
So here's what we're going to do.
No twerking, but everybody's going to have to wear one of those tucking bathing suits just to show, you know, that we're pro-trans.
And it's like, um, boss, yeah, I don't want to wear a tucking bathing suit.
That seems like that'd be more than 9%.
You know, going in the wrong direction, maybe.
I just wonder how the business meeting went, that's all.
Well, we're in fake poll season where the polls might be right sometimes, but you should assume that many of our polls are faked for the purpose of making any election irregularities look like they're real.
Yes, I mean that.
I do mean that no matter how many polls say Trump is going to be winning by 20 points in November, there will be polls that say that Biden is up by one.
You want to take that bet?
Does anyone want to take the bet that no matter what kind of a giant lead that Trump might have in some polls, there'll be other polls that say Biden up one?
I guarantee it, and they will not be real polls.
Axios says that one of the first polls conducted since the jury found Trump guilty found a significant minority of Republicans and Independents Want him to drop out and a majority of registered voters approve of the jury's decision.
So that's a real poll right there, huh?
Because I'll bet a lot of you Trump supporters, you're running into people every day who say, huh, I was going to vote for Trump, but now that he's been found guilty by his enemies, I can't vote for him anymore.
Do you believe, let me ask, have any of you met one Republican who said I'm not going to vote for him because of the lawfare trial?
Just one?
Anybody?
Is there even one of you who's ever met one person who said this is going to make them not vote for Trump?
Well, apparently Axios can find all kinds of people who say that.
No, it's not a thing.
Yeah, it's not a thing.
If this poll came out and I'd also heard of, or met, or talked to, or I'd seen a post, something on social media, some whisper, some hint, some suggestion, that even one person had changed their mind because of the trial, to vote against him anyway, then I'd say, well, could be, maybe.
But I'm going to declare this sounds like, to me, the fakest of the fake polls.
Fakey fake.
Speaking of fake, Biden says he's got a peace plan for Gaza and Israel, and Israel is backing it.
There is dispute about whether Israel is backing it.
I think what really happened is Israel said, sure, you can say that.
Go ahead.
Which is a little different from saying it's their plan.
But here's the plan.
Let me give you the details of Biden's plan for peace.
We'll start by doing something impractical, then something stupid, and then something that will never happen in a million years, followed by something that nobody wants.
And then once all those steps are done, peace.
Peace in our time.
Here's what's really happening as far as I can tell.
There is no way in hell that Biden or his team thinks that this peace proposal is going to go anywhere.
There's no way in hell that Israel is in favor of this, even though they said, go ahead, go ahead and propose it because they will simply stall until they get what they want.
Allow me to be Israel and play this out for you, right?
Joe Biden says he wants to propose this peace thing where we're going to do an immediate ceasefire.
And then later we'll talk about getting our hostages back and then we'll return Hamas to power in Gaza.
And Netanyahu says, what?
And then he repeats it.
And Netanyahu says, there isn't a chance in the fucking world that we're going to consider any of that.
We're going to go for a total victory.
There will be zero Hamas left.
And what happens to Gaza will be our decision.
Fuck you.
Because that's the reality.
But.
Do you think he can say no?
Well, you don't want to say no to the United States.
You still need some weapons.
You still want some goodwill.
So instead, what do you do?
You Gavin Newsome him.
You Gavin Newsome him.
Remember Gavin Newsome had to deal with reparations.
So instead of saying yes or no, Both of which would be bad.
He said, let's form a committee and study it forever until I've got a different job.
He basically is going to make them study it until he has a different job.
Now, that's that's some good weasel stuff right there.
But obviously, Israel is doing the same thing.
It's going to look like this.
All right, Israel, all you have to do is cease fire.
And Israel say, got it.
Cease fire.
We'll get right on that as soon as we clean out this last nest of Hamas people.
Well, no, we're really sort of the whole point of it was immediate ceasefire.
Got it.
Immediate ceasefire.
We'll get right on that as soon as we're done with just this one operation.
Well, really, we'd like it immediately.
I know, but you know, in the real world, you can wait for this one operation.
And then they wait for the one operation and they go, you know what we discovered when we did this operation?
More tunnels.
I thought we were pretty close to being done.
I honestly did.
But it looks like we found a few more tunnels.
Can you give me two more weeks?
No, there's no chance that Israel's taking any of this bullshit seriously.
They are going to destroy every fucking Hamas, you know, atom that they can find.
And they're not going to stop until it's done.
And they're not going to let anybody tell them what's going to happen in Gaza when it's done.
Those things you should just take as a given.
And I think there's also some adventure in the story about Netanyahu will go to jail if he gets out of office.
I think that's real, right?
So Netanyahu's enemies have enough power that they can put him in jail if they rise to power.
So he has to keep his job.
Or else he goes to jail.
That's the only system that's worse than ours.
You've got to do whatever it takes to keep in your job or else you're going to go to jail.
Well, the best thing I could do is start a war, make it really big, because people don't like to get rid of their leaders during a war.
So Israel has created this situation where their leader has to be a war leader, because otherwise he'll go to jail.
Imagine if that was your system, on paper.
Just imagine you saw it on paper.
All right, here's our system.
Let me draw this up for you.
I've got a diagram.
Here we got these two paths.
You can start a war, which we don't like, but that's the only way that you can stay in a jail.
So you got your two choices here.
You got your war forever, Stay in power or work out peace and you go directly to jail for reasons that you might not even think are real.
That's their actual system.
Jail or war for their leader.
I mean, it's specific to this leader, but that's the situation they put themselves in.
So no, that peace plan's all fake.
I saw that Trump raised $53 million in 24 hours after the jury verdict came out, but I also saw a story that he raised $35 million.
Did he raise $35 million or $53 million?
Well, I'm a little bit dyslexic, so I'm going to say, eh, no difference.
53-35.
To dyslexics like me, it's the same number, so let's not dispute that.
Well, here's how you know the Democrats do not have anybody smart advising them.
They have decided collectively, hilariously, that calling Trump a convicted felon is totally going to make a difference.
So let me take you through what happened.
Democrats.
All right.
If we can make this lawfare scheme work, we'll be able to call Trump a convicted felon.
And then there's no chance he can get elected.
Convicted felon.
And then I turn on MSNBC and they are so hilariously trying to drop in convicted felon on Joy Reid's show that it reads like a comedy.
So they'll be having any conversation like, what do you think about the weather?
Well, the weather is much better after convicted felon Trump.
Got convicted for his felony, because the convicted felon Trump, convicted felon.
I think their one guest said it maybe 12 times, convicted felon.
And I just started laughing, because it's all they have.
Democrats think that words are reality.
You see it everywhere.
They actually think the words are the reality.
They can't separate it.
So they come up with this great plan.
With the best of their thinkers to call Trump a convicted felon.
And it took Dan Bongino, I think probably three to five seconds to destroy it with one post.
Quote, I'm voting for the outlaw.
And we're done.
And we're done.
Here's what Dan Bongino understands.
We want the outlaw.
I'm sorry.
You did not make him less valuable to us.
No, you tried.
As soon as you made him an outlaw, he raised 53 million or possibly 35 million if you're dyslexic.
Yeah.
No, he powered up.
I'm voting for the outlaw too.
How many of you want to vote for the outlaw?
Anybody?
Anybody up for that?
Because the thing that we know is that he's an outlaw because of your system.
Do you know who else was an outlaw in the American history?
Let me name some outlaws.
Thomas Jefferson.
George Washington.
Benjamin Franklin.
James Monroe, Madison, John Hancock.
Yeah.
Every one of them was an outlaw, a felon, an insurrectionist.
So here's the thing that all Republicans seem to know is that this outlaw label is just telling you what we already know and what we value.
Who's going to change anything if they don't ruffle some feathers?
Who's going to make the change that's big enough?
James Madison, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Monroe, Ben Franklin.
They're the ones who make the big enough changes.
Small changes?
No thanks.
We've had small changes.
Don't like it at all.
No, we need some big changes.
We need an outlaw.
Thank you very much.
Nelson Mandela.
Convicted felon.
And the fact that they don't seem to understand that is really evidence that they don't have anybody good working for them at this point.
All right.
Let's see.
They actually believe that convicted felon is going to work like a magic spell.
It reminded me of Dorothy and Oz.
Hey, Dorothy, all you have to do to go home is close your eyes and click your heels.
And then you turn on MSNBC and they believe that all they need to get Biden elected is to repeat the phrase convicted felon.
Close your eyes, click your heels and say, there's no place like home, Dorothy.
Close your eyes, click your heels, and say, Convicted Felon.
Joy Reed.
Same, same.
All right.
Benny Johnson was Talk about the founders all being felons on Charlie Kirk's show.
So credit where credit is due.
There's two worlds that have been created with her interview.
You know, the one that the Republicans wanted to get the exact transcript.
And the Biden administration is saying, you don't need the exact transcript because the transcript that you have is close enough.
And the Republicans say, really?
Is it?
Because there might be some indication in that transcript Uh, of the actual audio.
That the transcript was edited to make him seem less crazy.
Biden.
Um, so now we've, we've got a little more information in which they've described what kind of edits they made.
And it was stuff like if he said a word twice, um, they would just put it down once.
So for example, if he said, I, uh, I went to the store.
They would just write down.
I went to the store.
They would not write down, I went to the store.
So that's the sort of example.
And so after those examples, the pro-Trump people said, there it is.
They've admitted that they edited it to make him look less dementia-riddled.
And then the people who released it said, what are you reading?
Are you reading the same thing we wrote?
What we wrote, Is that if he stuttered, we just wrote it down once.
Like, how does that in any way tell you that we hid his dementia?
To which I say, I'm going to agree with them.
Now, I'm not saying that if you heard the actual audio, you wouldn't be more horrified.
What I am saying is they didn't admit it.
There's no confession.
The confession is we didn't do it.
But it's being widely reported I saw on social media as they've confessed.
They say they are doing it.
I don't know.
I read it.
It looked like they weren't confessing to me.
Anyway, Trump says we're a failing nation.
He says, I'm a political prisoner.
This is not a truth.
I'm a political prisoner of a failing nation, but I will soon be free.
Make America Great Again.
I also saw comic Dave Smith, he was talking about the U.S.
being a late state empire, that I've also heard of the, is it the fourth turning?
So there are a whole bunch of beliefs on the right, that the U.S.
is in a predictable, staged decline, similar to other civilizations and other examples in the past.
I would like to suggest that that is a case of assuming history repeats, which is one of the biggest errors of analysis.
Now, I'm not saying that we're not in decline, because things go up and things go down, and sure.
I'm saying that you can't predict it, based on the past.
So, even though history repeats, and some say cleverly, no, you mean history rhymes, History is not your guide for the future, because we can't even analyze the present.
If we don't even know if climate change is real, I mean, we don't agree on it, we're certainly not going to agree what history is real.
The one thing I'm sure of is that all of our history is fake in the first place.
All of our history is fake.
So if you're looking at history and say, history repeats, I say, which part?
The real part or the bullshit they told you?
Which part's going to repeat?
If you can tell me, does the fake stuff repeat?
Or does the real stuff that we were never taught repeat?
You don't even know that, right?
So no, history doesn't fucking repeat.
And as soon as you think it does, you're lost.
I can't even have a conversation with you, right?
Every situation is different.
And one of the reasons that history doesn't repeat is if you've seen that history, You say, oh, we don't want to do that, so we'll make sure that doesn't happen again.
The rarest thing would be for history to repeat.
It can't.
Everything's different by the time a new thing comes along.
So, are we a late state empire?
Are we in the fourth turning?
Are we a failing nation?
That's sort of what Americans like to say about America all the time and always have.
I remember when I was young, this was exactly the conversation.
When the hippies were protesting Vietnam, oh, it's the end of America.
All of the hard-working Christian family-oriented things, they're all gone now.
It's the end of the country.
Well, not really.
We did fine after that.
So the first thing you have to keep in mind is that we always talk about ourselves this way.
So I suppose that's something that's repeatable, but it has less to do with history.
More to do with the fact that Americans like to talk about themselves as being doomed, even when we're not.
When I was a kid, I was sure nukes were going to kill me, and the ozone hole was going to kill me, and everything was going to kill me.
This is in that context, which doesn't mean it's not true.
I'm just saying that you can't tell it's true.
There's no evidence that I would consider reliable and, you know, confirmatory, you know, by itself anyway.
So here's what I think.
Here's the better way to look at it.
We are a nation of inventors.
And importantly, we are a nation of destroyers.
And those two things work real well together.
But they make it hard to predict where things are going because Americans don't necessarily like to straight line things.
As in, you know, the way we used to do this is the way we'll do it next year.
We like to destroy.
Just rip it out by the roots, start over.
And I think we're about ready to do that now with AI and robots and self-driving cars and probably nuclear power and all kinds of stuff.
So, there is a wave of invention coming to the United States, and the United States is more equipped to handle change and invention and destruction of the old things to build the new thing than any other country on Earth.
All these gigantic changes are coming to everybody, but only America, uniquely, we can handle it.
So if I were going to predict, I would say, wait, every single country is going to have tremendous technological disruption.
And unless they have an Elon Musk, they're fucked.
Unless they have a Sam Altman, they're fucked.
But guess what?
We have Sam Altman.
We have Elon Musk.
We've got Silicon Valley.
We've got Naval.
We've got Balaji.
We have exactly the right human beings to handle the biggest change of technology in humankind and just put a saddle on that bitch.
And I think that's what's going to happen.
Yeah, sure.
You can think of the change like a wild animal that's coming at you.
But we can saddle wild animals better than anybody's ever saddled a wild animal.
It's just, I think it's baked into our DNA.
We are problem solvers.
So no, you can't predict, and it's not unusual that we talk about ourselves as failing, because that's one of the ways we succeed.
It seems relentlessly negative, but it's also so connected to our building impulse.
When we talk about things are shit, it's because we want to build.
Like, so it's not as negative as it could be, maybe some other country.
When Americans say something's trash, they've already got two designs in their head to improve it.
Right?
We're builders.
We will build our way out of this.
We will invent our way out, like we always do.
You ever hear the phrase, no one's above the law?
Have you ever imagined, you know, Biden saying about Trump, no one's above the law.
And then everybody's got to repeat that on the left.
No one's above the law.
Have you ever heard anybody say that when it was generally assumed that the law had been applied fairly?
The only context where anybody ever says nobody's above the law is when the legal system screwed somebody.
Why else would you even bring it up?
So let's say you heard that a drug dealer got convicted.
Do you ever say, well, No one's above the law?
No.
How about when, uh, um, who was that famous pyramid scheme guy went to jail?
Did anybody say, well, no one's above the law.
I didn't hear it.
They just said, is there evidence he was guilty?
Yes.
Did the court do something about it?
Yes.
That's the story.
Who's talking about somebody being above the law?
Has anybody ever been above the law?
No.
There are simply court cases and then things happen.
But I'll tell you what does happen all the time.
People are treated like they're below the law.
I can think of zero cases where somebody was above the law except for the sitting president.
And we actually allow that to some extent because we don't want our president to get pecked to death by little legal challenges.
So Biden is operating very much like he's above the law.
But what about his son, Hunter?
Is Hunter above the law?
I don't know.
Well, the Clintons, yeah.
So there's certainly some examples of the Clintons being above the law.
But here's the thing.
The reason they didn't get charged had nothing to do with anybody being above the law.
It was simply they had the power.
So, when somebody says that no one's above the law, it's usually an indication that they used lawfare to attack them.
So the person you should trust the least is someone who says no one is above the law.
That is such a tell for Putin-like behavior.
You don't think Putin said that?
Do you think Putin's ever put a critic in jail and said, well, I know you don't like it, but nobody's above the law?
Of course he has.
I'm sure he has.
I don't know.
But I'm sure he said something like that.
Because that's what you say when you're screwing somebody.
If you're not screwing somebody, and everybody's just watching the process unfold in its normal way, you don't say this.
It doesn't even occur to you.
It's only when you're screwing somebody you say it.
All right.
Also, when the government says something's going to be free, check your wallet.
When does the government ever tell you something's going to be free?
When they're lying.
It's the only time they say it.
There's no other time to say it, because nothing's ever free.
David Sachs had this interesting post.
He said the agenda of Soros DAs is to release repeat offenders, prosecute political opponents, and he termed that anarcho-tyranny.
And Elon Musk commented on that, and he said, the Joker playbook.
So just like the Batman movie, where the Joker wanted chaos and tyranny, the allegation is that Soros is doing it.
But I've got a lot of questions.
Because this is a little too, here's a new term I'm going to start using, too reductive.
I heard somebody say that the other day.
That's too reductive.
Too simplified.
There's something more complicated going on that we don't understand, and I'll explain that to you.
All right, what does it tell you if Soros is involved in interco-tyranny?
What's missing?
What's missing with that analysis is... What?
Why?
Why?
Why would you do a thing like that?
All right, so here are the questions that don't make sense to me.
Number one, Why would George Soros want anarchy tyranny?
Now you're going to say it's because he's crazy, to which I say, but Democrats agree with his policies, and his son, who doesn't look crazy to me, also agrees with it.
So it's not because senior George Soros is crazy, because right down the line beneath him, you can see a whole bunch of people who are on the same page.
So are they all crazy?
So crazy doesn't explain it.
How about Soros has a way to benefit from it, like he's found a way to make money.
Soros is giving his money away.
If his main thing were how to make money, the first thing you do is stop giving it away.
That's like rule number one of wanting to have more money is how about you stop aggressively trying to give away 90% of it, which is what he's doing.
So, what kind of plan do you imagine somebody makes money by giving 90% of it away?
Now, I get that he may be colluding with dark forces to know what's going to happen before it happens, etc.
But Soros lives in the United States.
How does it make sense he's trying to destroy his own country?
And then live where?
If the United States falls, where's the safe country?
China?
He's not a China fan.
He's not a Russia fan.
Right?
So, none of it makes sense.
Lots of people on the same side, but they too don't seem to be able to express how they think this works out.
Doesn't make sense.
About... Why is it that if we believe, as Republicans do, That Soros is the cause of all of our problems.
So, we know he's funded the DAs and the prosecutors, and the AGs and the DAs.
And we know he's doing a bunch of things, funding NGOs and opening the border and stuff.
So, if we think he's behind much of what's going wrong, isn't there something missing in the news?
Like, really, seriously, seriously missing?
Here's what's missing.
Our next guest will be Alex Soros to explain why what he's doing makes sense, and we'll be asking him some tough questions.
Where's that?
I've literally never seen him interviewed by anybody who had real questions.
All I see is pictures of top-ranking Democrats hugging him, like literally just hugging him all the time.
And he posted that, you know, they need to start calling Trump a convicted felon.
And right after he posts that, all the news starts calling him a convicted felon.
Like they were just waiting for the word of what word should we use and how do we go about this?
Oh, and then Alex Soros says, this is what you do.
Just call him convicted felon over and over again.
He said that directly.
He said, call him a convicted felon, because repeating it will, you know, make it sink in.
And just keep repeating it.
So, nobody's going to ask him for an interview?
We're all sitting here with our thumbs up our fucking asses, complaining about Soros.
And there's a living Soros who's in charge of the budget, who's an American, who lives where we know he is.
I mean, he could easily contact him.
Nobody wants him on TV.
Shouldn't at least Fox News say, for the millionth time in a row, we've invited him on but he said no?
You've seen that happen before, right?
You've seen hosts, they'll make a big deal about they invited somebody and he keeps saying no.
Well, just tell us you invited him and he kept saying no.
Where's the Republican Congress Who is able to basically call in anybody to testify.
Have they asked Alex Soros to come in and explain why he's funding the NGOs that are destroying the country?
Haven't seen it?
How do you explain that?
How do you explain that Jim Jordan and the ones you expect to be calling in people to find out what's wrong?
I never heard it.
How do you explain this?
It can't be true that he's behind all of our problems, and nobody wants to talk to him in the news business?
Not the left or the right.
Or if he's saying no to interviews, why isn't that being reported?
We're trying to find out what he thinks, but he keeps saying no.
You see that there's something, the biggest part of the story is the part that's missing.
All the things we talk about are the small parts of the story.
The big part is, what the fuck's going on?
And nobody's asking the question except me, apparently.
I've never even heard anybody say what I'm saying, which is, why aren't we talking to him every day?
Why isn't he on one of the news shows every day if he's this important?
So one of two things are possible.
He's not that important, and he's not really destroying the country.
Or he has so much power that even the Republicans are afraid of him.
Can you think of a third reason why he's not the top news story every day?
If immigration is the top news story, you're not talking to the person you think is causing it?
Or one of them?
How does any of this make sense?
I'll bet you don't have a hypothesis.
Because I don't have I usually I have like the evil hypothesis.
It's like well Given what we see there must be some conspiracy master plan But I don't even see what that would be What I see here is just something gigantic.
That's just missing and We act like we don't notice Why do we keep acting like we don't notice he's not on TV every day talking about why he's doing what he's doing.
I And yet we talk all day long about the effects of his actions and never talk to him.
It's the biggest mystery in the news.
I have no idea what's behind that.
I really don't.
Anyway, here's the best thing I can imagine if I were to intuit the Soros opinion, is say you have to break something before you can fix it.
In other words, maybe, this is the most charitable interpretation, is that Soros knows he needs to break our immigration system before it turns into something that's a kinder, gentler one for the world.
Maybe he needs to break the cities and break the justice system before we say, you know what, maybe we should rethink, you know, putting 30% of black people in jail or whatever the number is.
So it could be that he is actually so smart, the senior Soros, that he knows the one and only way to make the world better is you got to break what's here and you got to break it hard and with no remorse.
And that you'll go through a terrible time fixing it, but you have to get there.
Maybe you can't say that out loud.
Maybe that's the problem.
Maybe it's a belief.
I'm just speculating.
I have no reason to think that's the thinking.
But that's the best I could come up with, is that he's smarter than all of us and he knows he needs to break the corrupt system before a better one can be invented.
Maybe?
But I'd like to hear him say it.
That's just a guess.
Over in the MSNBC alternate universe, which I tortured myself in watching because I just can't get enough of watching the alternate reality.
Here's some examples.
Well, my first question is, how does MSNBC explain The right.
Because it's easy to explain that the crazy people on the right, the people have been Republicans forever, and, you know, they're just in their biased little cubicle, and, you know, they're religious, and maybe that's different than MSNBC.
But how do they explain Elon Musk?
Do the people on the left, are they unaware that Musk has a whole bunch of common sense beliefs.
They don't exactly map to any political group.
It's more like what works.
Okay, where's the data, what works, what's good for people.
And that causes him to disagree with the left quite often.
But how in the world do you explain him?
Do they tell themselves that despite his many successes, that he's actually not smart?
How do they explain David Sachs?
How do you explain that?
He used to be your guy, but based on just obvious, easy-to-explain things, he says, I've changed my mind.
How do you explain Bill Maher changing his mind, at least a little bit?
Charlemagne coming out and saying, you know, neither side's looking too hot to me right now.
How do you explain me?
They had to smear me to explain me.
Do you realize that?
I'm inexplicable unless you cancel me and disgrace me, and then people have permission not to listen.
They go, oh, that's the racist, disgraced, canceled guy, so we don't have to listen to what he says.
But otherwise, how would you explain me?
Because I'm genuinely not trying to make one team win.
Never have.
It's just not in my DNA.
How do you explain so many black voters moving to the Republicans?
Do they think the black voters are not as smart?
Is that what the left thinks?
Because they're acting like only smart people are on the left, so if you're moving from the left to the right, is that because you're the dumb ones?
So the dumb ones are going to move over to the right?
Are they saying that black voters moving en masse to Republicans are the dumb ones?
Is that their opinion?
Because to me they look like the smartest ones.
Because they're seeing the whole field for the first time.
You know, which Trump allows you to do for the first time.
All right, Claire McCaskill said that all the Trump supporters calling on red states DAs to criminally prosecute Democrats as a sort of revenge don't realize you can't do that unless there's a crime.
Really?
Claire McCaskill?
After we just watched what happened to Trump, you believe that Democrats are safe because they didn't commit any crimes?
And you said that in public?
I don't even think other Democrats think that.
I think most people are aware enough that if you take anybody with a complicated life, public figure, billionaire, and you look for a crime, you will definitely find one.
And it doesn't mean that those are bad people.
It's just we have a complicated world and you always have one toe over some line if you're just trying to walk down the street.
You know, if you're rich and complicated and you're a politician, etc.
So now, how in the world is she living in a world where the Democrats aren't doing any crimes, so therefore they're safe from lawfare?
Is that just stupid?
Or lying?
Can you even tell?
Is that stupid or lying?
Or bold?
It's just such an alternate universe.
How about this?
You're an insurrectionist and a traitor if you question the fake elections and you question the lawfare.
So if you question the justice system after you just watched it act in the most corrupt way we've ever seen in the history of the United States, if you question the corruption that you watched with your own eyes, Then you're probably a dictator who hates democracy.
What?
What?
That's not even something you could make an argument for.
It's just pure ridiculousness.
Their alternate world.
No, we question things which are obviously corrupt.
And they act like that's, well, there's nothing corrupt.
No Democrats have broken any laws, and certainly the Department of Justice works just great.
How did they explain that the Department of Justice doesn't work for black Americans, doesn't work for low-income people who can't afford a lawyer, and yet it's clean?
It's totally broken, but also it totally works.
So the Democrats would have you believe both things.
It's totally a good system, except, you know, when one of the Democrats is in it and then it's totally corrupt.
They're also telling us, and this is just such a head shaker, Democrats are trying to tell us that the jury trial was fair because juries get it right and they try really hard and they're serious people.
Are you kidding me?
In what world do juries get it right because they tried hard?
How do you explain why sequestering juries is a thing?
If juries could get the right answer, free of influence, you wouldn't have to sequester them.
Because they'd go and they'd talk to their friends and family, and then they'd say, oh, but I have, you know, I have the facts, so I'll just rule on the facts.
No, the reason that sequestering even happens is because we don't trust that the juries will get right answers if they have access to more information.
Just think about that.
The reason you sequester is to prevent them from seeing additional information.
Some might be true and some might be false, but that's true of the trial itself.
The trial itself is them trying to figure out what's true and what's false.
The rest of the world is more information that they also have to try to use their best judgment to figure out if it's true or false.
So you wouldn't need sequestering unless juries could be influenced.
Why do you do jury selection?
What's the point of doing jury selection at all, if all those juries can get good answers and they're serious?
Well, it's because if you don't pick the right people, you'll get the wrong jury result.
Well, how is that a thing?
How could it be that you have to pick the right people to get the right result?
How could it be that you have to pick the right mix of race and gender?
Because they do.
They try really hard to get, you know, the race and gender they think will go their way.
Lawyers do.
How do you explain that people with more money do better?
How do you explain that in the court system?
How do you explain that black Americans have been unfairly treated for decades if the system just looks at the facts?
So the fact that the left has suddenly decided that for the first time ever, juries get the right answer without bias, are they really trying to convince us that that's true?
Because you know they don't believe it.
Are they lying or are they stupid?
Or both?
How about where they say Trump must be guilty of something because of all the indictments?
Have they never heard that you can indict a ham sandwich and indictments don't mean anything in terms of guilt?
Do they not know that?
But they act like the 91 indictments matters.
Do they not know that 91 indictments is maybe three alleged crimes?
Do they not know that 34 felony convictions means he did one thing, allegedly?
And by the way, probably wasn't illegal.
And by the way, we're not sure what he got convicted for.
Neither is he.
So they went from, you can indict a ham sandwich to he must be guilty because the 34 and yeah, and 34 convictions.
Um, they also, it's a part of the reason that they say they don't care if, If the trial was clean because he must have been guilty of something.
How many of you have heard this?
They literally don't care if the trial was rigged because they think, well, he's guilty of something.
We're better off if he gets stopped.
They're actually saying that out loud.
I've heard people say that out loud and they're okay with that.
So they love their justice system, but they are also willing to say out loud, That even if this was unfair, well, he did other things.
What are those other things?
Why did they choose to go after the one thing that, you know, was the weakest possible thing they could charge him with when he had all these other crimes?
They've been looking at him for years.
Crazy.
But I don't think the MSNBC people will ever hear that the conflicted judge was chosen randomly.
There's so many things that Fox News says ten times a day that they'll never hear on MSNBC.
Do you think anybody on MSNBC has ever said, well, you know, they're supposed to be chosen randomly, the judges, but yet this one judge who donates to Stop Trump organization, literally, this one judge got picked for three Trump-related trials in a row?
The same guy?
Do you think they've ever heard that?
I'll bet not.
I'll bet if you stopped him in the street and said, do you know about this random picking of judges and how it didn't happen this time?
They would not even know that was an issue.
Not at all.
Anyway.
Do you think that MSNBC watchers know that the judge didn't allow an expert on donating to a campaign?
Do you think they know that?
Probably not.
Do you think they know that nobody heard what the exact charges were until the closing statement?
Do you think they talk about that at MS... No!
Their users have no idea.
Do you think that the MSNBC people are spending a lot of time talking about how the jury instructions were absurd and there's not a single expert who thinks they're reasonable?
No.
Nope.
They've never heard that over there.
Do you think that they've heard that Trump's lawyers had to give up on objecting?
Because they objected so many times And the judge overruled them so many times, I think somebody said, you know, eight out of ten times, that they realized that if they kept objecting at the same rate for legitimate stuff, that the jury would start getting mad at them, because the jury wouldn't know that their objections were legitimate.
They would just see them get overruled and overruled, and it would make them look less credible.
Do you think MSNBC ever heard that?
No?
Of course not.
They're living in a little dream world.
Well, anyway, in other news, the Menendez trial is happening.
And now we think that there's some more information about bribery and something about a sudden monopoly that developed over the certification of meat exported to Egypt.
So we'll find out what's going on there.
But do you think a top Democrat will be found guilty?
Here's what I don't know.
I don't know where he's being tried.
D.C.?
Is Menendez being tried where the where the juries are going to be so pro-Democrat that they're not even going to listen to the evidence?
Because that might happen.
I don't know.
I think this one is so Cut and dry that you probably will get convicted.
And why would he be convicted?
In other words, why would Menendez get something like a reasonable, fair trial, but Trump would not?
Let me speculate.
Nobody ever said that Menendez was Hitler.
The reason that people are willing to put up with what is obviously a corrupt trial situation is they think it's stopping Hitler.
And that would not be immoral.
It would not be immoral to corrupt your own justice system just to stop Hitler.
But whether that's a reality is a separate question.
Why is there no real debate about ending the lobbying influence in Congress?
And why does anybody raise money to run for office?
Here's a change I would like to see.
I would like to see it be illegal to raise money to run for office.
I would like the government to say, if you can get X number of people to sign a petition, we will include you on a website and you can get all the attention you want.
It'll say what you can do, what you can't.
You can put all your videos there, you know, show yourself as much as you want, but you can't raise money.
What we will do is we'll try to talk about everybody's ideas and some people will just sort of naturally rise in the polls because they'll have better ideas.
But the fact that we don't have a conversation about ending all funding for elections, It is a pretty clear indication that the system is corrupt and that both sides are gaming the corruption.
So if all the political experts get paid from all the fundraising, much of which goes to the political consultants and experts, those consultants and experts are going to say, oh, the last thing you ever want to do is stop this, because they're getting paid.
So it should be illegal.
To raise money and pay consultants.
If you can't do it on your own, we should hire Axelrod.
Why do we even consider Joe Biden as a candidate when Axelrod would be advising him?
Why not just hire Axelrod if you're a Democrat?
I like to use him as an example because I think he's sane and he's doing the best he can in a crazy situation.
And Grok still hasn't summarized them.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen.
Do we have a mechanism by which this crazy country that looks like it's failing can be rescued?
Yes, we do.
Yes, we do.
We are finally all on the same page about the need for nuclear power.
I saw Lucky Palmer talking about it yesterday.
And now the AI is going to push the need for electricity.
We're going to probably solve our power issues and within a generation.
If we can, if we could be the first country to get to near zero cost, this is lucky Palmer's take.
If the United States can go balls to the wall on nuclear and very quickly get up to speed.
So as he says, the cost of power is so low, you can't even meter it.
It's like, well, why don't you just pay me like a monthly?
Yeah, just give me $20 a month.
Because it's so cheap to make it, we don't even know how much you're using and we don't care.
Just $20 a month.
We won't even monitor your usage, it's so cheap.
If we got to that point, we could manufacture competitively against China.
So if you've got robots and you've got unlimited, almost free power, There's nothing that China can do that we can't do here cheaper.
So that's huge.
And we know it.
And we also kind of know how to get there.
You know, there have been some big changes in the Biden administration, and I think this has more to do with the Department of Energy being on the ball.
But the government does seem to be making changes that make it easier for nuclear to become the reality it needs to be.
So if we fix energy, that fixes just so many things.
It reduces your inflation, like every product that depends on any kind of transportation or energy, from steel to anything.
Uh, we'll go way down.
So really you could argue that inflation is a measure of energy being too expensive.
It's not directly all that's happening, but if you took energy costs down to zero, what would be your inflation tomorrow?
Prices would be down.
Yeah.
If you, if you want balls, the wall and nuclear, your inflation goes away.
So you probably need a leader who's not afraid to take a risk when it makes sense.
I'm not sure that leader is Biden.
We might need a Trump-like person who says, look, there's no way you're going to get insurance for these big projects, but it's also necessary that we have a ton of nuclear power plants real soon.
So here's the deal.
The government will indemnify from, you know, some big mistake, and we'd rather go fast and make some mistakes, even a meltdown, because we know how to control meltdowns pretty well now.
You could limit a meltdown in today's world.
So you might need somebody like a Trump who finally says, The only way we beat our biggest problem, which is the national debt, competing with other countries, having jobs, is build robots like crazy, build AI like crazy, and even crazier, change your rules and make it easier to make nuclear right away.
So there actually is a path.
So what would that look like?
Would that look like the late stage United States?
Would it look like we're a failing country?
Are we wrong?
Not without stuff looming.
Here's what Rome didn't have.
AI, robots, Trump.
The biggest military in the world.
Geographic excellence.
We have just the best geography.
All the resources in the world.
Nobody on our border who looks like they want to attack.
We have everything.
We just have to be smarter about using it.
And in November, there's a non-zero chance that Trump will be your president, and you'd have the best chance of taking a serious swing at some of the big problems, the really big ones.
The problem is that the people who make money from the current situation are not going to love him being president, so they're going to try pretty hard to stop it.
All right.
Let me summarize that.
I'd like to give you four words, which I borrowed this morning, that will give you some hope.
Would you like an inspirational thought?
Would anybody like to end the program on an inspirational thought?
Here it goes.
It's always darkest before the dawn.
Thank you ladies and gentlemen for joining on the YouTube and Rumble and X platform.
