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, Joni Ernst, Vivek Ramaswamy, WaPo Margaret Sullivan, FDA Advisory Board, All-In Podcast, President Biden, Joe Scarborough, President Trump, Billionaire Free Speech, Tucker Carlson, Success Jealousy Theory, Hunter Biden Trial, Fake Political Accomplishments Strategy, Hamas Peace Plan, Dementia Paranoia, Lifestyle Beliefs, Matthew Colangelo, America First Legal, Alex Soros, Huma Abedin, 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
If you'd like to take your experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny human brains, smooth and tiny and dumb as they are.
But if you'd like to be better than that, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass of tanker gels, a sign, 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 Don't mean the end of the day.
The thing that makes everything better today with a little bit of oxytocin thrown in for free.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
Sip.
I feel like I totally Joe Biden that simultaneous sip.
Thank you.
I'd like to read the simultaneous sip in the character of Joe Biden.
He's mugging my phone.
Tigard!
Tigard!
Trump's making my candy too small!
I think that's how it sounds.
Anyway, if you were watching the Dilbert comic, you would see an interesting thing.
If you subscribe to the Dilbert comic, either on X or on Locals, you also get the digital Dilbert calendar.
There's only a digital one this year.
And you would see the 10 years from current date.
So I'm running the calendar or 10 years ago comics.
The comic from 10 years ago, This week?
Could have been written today.
Ten years ago I was writing about the robots taking over, you know, Dilbert's job and using their advanced intelligence, and it would look like it was written today.
It would look exactly like today.
It was weird.
All right, in the category of science you could have totally skipped and just asked Scott and saved a lot of money.
Scott, we're considering doing this large double-blind experiment, but before we spend millions of dollars and years doing it, maybe we should just ask you and save all that money.
So here's one of those ones where they could have done that.
They did a study and they found that the internet alters brain chemistry in young people and might make them addicted.
Yeah, yeah.
It's 2024 and we're just discovering that the internet's kind of addictive.
I feel like you could have saved a lot of money on this one.
Do you know how I knew the internet is addictive?
And video games are addictive and that kind of stuff?
I've seen a minor playing a video game.
Have you ever seen a young boy playing a video game?
What's it look like to you?
What the hell does it look like to you?
If that's not addiction, I don't know what is, for God's sakes.
Yeah, that's a little obvious.
Here's another one you could have asked me about.
Scientists at MIT are building this AI chatbot that will be a version of you that they will artificially age into the future, so you can actually have a conversation with yourself in the future.
Like yourself retired.
And you can say things like, all right, so you were a teacher for 30 years.
Let's say that's what you wanted to become.
How'd it work out?
And then the chatbot will say stuff like, well, you're very rewarding.
You know, maybe tell you it didn't make as much money as he could have, but you know, the benefits are good.
That sort of thing.
Well, the reason you could have asked me is because this, this science was done maybe 20 years ago.
I remember talking about it 20 years ago.
If they artificially, this is before AI, but they artificially use CGI, I think, to age you.
And all you had to do is look at yourself as an old person.
And then they would ask you how much you're saving in your retirement accounts.
And the people who saw a photo of themselves old saved more money because now their future old self looked like a real person.
They had a visual representation.
So yes, I believe that talking to your future self as your advisor might be the very best way to improve your life in the future.
It's not there yet.
But imagine if you got advice from you, the more mature version of yourself.
Who are you going to trust more than you that has more experience than you?
The only thing that would be better than me is me with a little more experience.
That says every person in the world.
All right.
So that's exciting.
Actually, that could be a pretty big deal.
So Senator Joni Ernst, I think she's the one, I didn't write it down by memory, I think she's the one who was caught on the hot mic.
Give me a fact check if I got the wrong senator.
But as she was walking away and her microphone is still on, she mumbled, I don't trust anyone whose uncle was eaten by cannibals.
Now, That's a good joke.
I immediately said, wait, I'm going to have to look into this Jodi Ernst, because suddenly she's a little smarter than I thought.
It's actually hard to tell a funny joke.
You know, one that you haven't heard before, that's not just being copied.
But what makes this work?
I'll talk about it in terms of what makes a joke work.
I don't trust anyone whose uncle was eaten by cannibals.
You get that it doesn't make sense, right?
Like it's not a logical statement, but that's why it's funny.
It's funny because your brain tries to make it make sense.
Make it make sense.
What does his uncle have to do with it?
But I suppose you could say that anybody who claims their uncle was eaten by cannibals would be a, you know, stronger way to play it.
But it's a funnier joke if you just say, I don't trust anyone whose uncle was eaten by cannibals.
The fact that it's just got that little bit of illogic, there's nothing that connects the uncle to Biden, is what makes it funny.
Because your brain tries to make it make sense and it doesn't.
And that's the model for a joke.
Now, could I teach this to AI?
I could, but it still couldn't do it.
Because it would have to run through lots of examples and judge them, and it can't judge them.
Now, the first time I heard this, or let's say I thought this joke in my own head, it would have made me laugh as soon as I thought of it.
And then I would have known it was a funny joke.
But AI can't do that because it can't test it on its own brain before it tries it out.
All right, I'm going to give you an NPC test.
Do you ever wonder if we're a simulation?
If you're an NPC?
Anybody ever wonder that?
Well, I'm going to find out right now.
I'm going to read you a story.
This is really in the news.
It's a real story.
And then I will test your reactions and we'll spot some NPCs.
I did this also on X. It's a good experiment.
Watch it.
All right, here's the story.
There's a company called Climeworks who has found a way to Vastly reduced the cost of sucking CO2 directly out of the air.
The company is called Climeworks.
They've already done this.
They've sucked CO2 out of the air.
Come on.
There we go.
NPCs are weighing in.
We caught a few.
Yeah, so they're taking the CO2 out of the air much more efficiently than they used to.
I think some of you are cheating.
You saw the answer in my X post.
If you said trees or CO2 is plant food, you're an NPC.
Do you know why?
Because it's the most obvious thing to say in that situation.
That's the tell.
And I've been talking about this topic for years.
And every time I do, somebody says, oh, you're telling me they invented trees?
Feeling pretty good about that one.
They invented trees is what you're saying?
Or they say, Scott, if they take all the CO2 out of the air, don't you know that's plant food?
It's plant food!
Now, I'm not saying you're wrong.
I'm just saying it's the most obvious thing to say.
So if you can't avoid saying the most obvious thing, you might be an NPC.
That's all.
That's all I'm saying.
So if you're not an NPC, but yeah, you fell into the trap of saying the most obvious thing, don't do that anymore because it makes you look like an NPC.
All right.
I'm going to test you again.
I'm going to test you again.
Somebody should invent a food that is an indistinct food that just has all of your vitamins and minerals and you could just eat it every day.
You didn't have to worry about it being, you know, all nutritionally complete because it'd be all good.
Say it.
Say it.
I know there's an NPC here.
Say soil and green.
Say it.
Yeah, that's an NPC trap.
If you talk about a new food source, and somebody says, it's soil and grain, NPC.
If you talk about a good way to exercise, and then somebody in the comments says, swimming is the best form of exercise, that's an NPC.
Because it's the most obvious thing to say about every conversation about exercise.
If you're talking about diet and fitness, And your contribution is, if you exercise more and eat fewer calories, you'll lose weight.
Well, you're either Matt Walsh or you're an NPC.
Matt Walsh is doing it for entertainment, so that's a different situation.
He's making content out of it.
All right.
Here's some news that I was worried about this for a while, and I find this reassuring.
You ever see a news story where you've been kind of anxious about this, but then you finally find out the truth, and it's just what you hoped it would be, and then you can finally relax?
Well, here's the truth.
And thank God, Vivek continues to be a national treasure, because he's over in, he traveled to Italy, and he met with the Pope.
And Vivek confirms that the Pope—hold on, because you're going to feel good about this—the Pope is opposed to war.
He thinks Ukraine should be settled peacefully.
Well, I don't know about you people, but that could have gone either way.
And I'm, for one, I'm glad that the Pope is opposed to war.
Because you never know.
I mean, unless you check in with them once in a while.
How much trouble would it be if suddenly they thought, you know what?
The more I think about this, the more I'm liking war.
So, I guess we've got another reprieve.
This Pope, this Pope is the good kind.
Opposed to war.
And thank you, Vivek, for going over there and confirming that for us.
Because up until now, we were just guessing.
Well, nothing entertains me more than watching the Washington Post die from eating its own dog food.
And what I mean by that is this.
Somebody named Margaret Sullivan, who I think is maybe a Democrat of some kind, maybe a writer, I'm not sure.
She said, talking about the Washington Post, she said, Each of our three newsrooms will be led by an outstanding white male, which we feel is especially appropriate in Washington, D.C.
Zing!
If these three newsrooms are successful, we will consider a fourth and a fifth.
So how about my DEI and sarcasm, and I'll put them together.
And here's what I say about that.
This is the kind of writing that made the Washington Post lose $77 million just last year.
Yeah, this is one of their best writers.
See the problem yet?
So, because they've accepted the DEI philosophy, at least the employees, they insist that they want more DEI.
But management and ownership appears to have decided something opposite.
As in, we can't lose $77 million a year and nobody's reading your stuff, so maybe we'll bring in some people who are very experienced.
But uh-oh, the experienced people were white.
And the boss, the new boss, said directly that, you know, Well, I'm gonna... I'll paraphrase this.
So this is not his words at all, but he basically said, I don't have time to dick around, so I just brought people I know can do the work.
I mean, again, that's not his words, but that's what it was.
He said, basically, I just don't have time to dick around, so I got some people that I've worked with before that I know can do this.
Now, is that smart?
Very smart.
In fact, I can't even think of a smarter thing.
What would be smarter?
Then recruiting great people with a great track record.
Well, the problem is that works everywhere except where there's a lot of DEI.
So watching the DEI rip the culture apart after the entities such as the news have been trying to push DEI on us, I like watching it destroy their entire organization.
Because that's what's happening.
There's an FDA advisory panel that turned down an application for a specific psychedelic from a specific company that they were going to do Lycos Therapeutics.
They wanted to use an MDMA-like substance.
Well, actually MDMA.
And they had some kind of a therapeutic process that would go with that, and they applied, and the FDA said no.
8 out of 10 said nope.
The risks outweigh the benefits.
Now, what's the first thing you think when you hear that an FDA advisory panel, now the FDA itself hasn't voted.
These are just the advisory panel.
We expect it would go the same as the advisory panel, because it was, you know, 8 to 2, but What's the first thing you think when you see the FDA might turn down a MDMA-based therapy?
Do you say to yourself, well, here's some honest people who looked at the data and decided to protect us by keeping us away from this kind of a risk.
Is that what you think?
Is that your first thought?
Or is your first thought that some number of these advisory panel people They have to be experts in the field, right?
What would be the point of an advisory panel unless they were experts in this kind of stuff?
Now, what would you expect of an expert of this kind of stuff?
Well, one thing I'd expect is if they ever wanted to make big money, they have to work for a big pharmaceutical company.
Do you think there are too many big pharmaceutical companies Who are super interested in seeing psychedelics destroy the biggest cash cow they've ever had, which is anxiety and antidepressant drugs.
So I asked myself, is there really any possibility that the FDA is even structured in a way that they could possibly approve something that's insanely good for the country, and you might not even need a professional to help you with it?
Now, ideally, you wouldn't want to do any psychedelics without some kind of professional guidance and quality control and all that.
But people will.
I mean, in the real world, they'll take some mushrooms and see what happens.
So I've got a feeling that the FDA, as structured, is not the entity we should ever trust.
For something that would reduce our costs by 100%, basically, cost of treatment, and also would fix you almost immediately, according to many, many reports.
So, I don't know.
I'd love to think the advisors got it right, but we live in such a zero-trust environment that I just automatically assume they didn't get it right.
Do you have the same reaction?
My working assumption is it's crooked.
Do you have the same?
I have no evidence.
It's just a working assumption.
Well, meanwhile, the EU Commission, they're looking at expanding their surveillance of their population into digital devices.
So they would maybe authorize the government to listen into your digital devices.
I assume we're already there.
Is there anybody who thinks their digital devices are not listening to them?
You know the people who don't want to have a, let's say an Amazon or a Google or an Apple digital device, it's because they're afraid it will listen to them in their private time.
How many of those people also have a smartphone sitting on the table next to them at the whole time they're saying, I sure wouldn't want to talk into that digital device over there, while you've got your smartphone in your hand?
If the government wants to hear your stuff, Can't they get into your phone just as easily as they can get into your digital device?
I feel like it's only a question of whether they want to get your stuff.
If they want to get all your communications and also listen in to what you're doing at the moment, I think they can do that to everybody all the time.
I don't think having a digital device would make really any difference at all.
Because when are you away from your phone?
How often do you spend near a digital device?
But not your phone.
Not very much.
Anyway, the X platform, Elon Musk's X platform, is maybe going to do some video product that's kind of like TikTok and Instagram Reels.
And there's a TV app coming too.
So sure enough, the X platform is going to be the everything platform.
And Musk would be crazy if he didn't do reels and TikTok things.
Because, you know, American TikTok might go away or might get divested and be with a competitor to X. Yeah, all the existing companies should be trying to chip away if that TikTok business could be big.
I heard also that maybe there was a rule change on X that would allow more adult content so long as children couldn't see it.
And I feel like that might be related to the Reels, because the Reels have this way, even if you have rules against what kind of content can be there, they have all kinds of ways to beat it.
Have you seen on Instagram, for example, you're not allowed to do full nudity?
But have you seen the workarounds to the full nudity?
They do skimpy, wet t-shirts that I suppose technically would show you clothed, but, you know, leaving nothing to the imagination.
The other thing they do is they flash you so that you have to try to catch it on a screenshot.
So it'll be some instrument, an influencer just, you know, lifts up her top.
I guess the algorithm can't catch it.
So everybody's always looking to cheat.
So it does seem to me if Musk is going to go big on video, you know, these short video loops, it's going to attract that kind of business.
And you might as well, you might as well adjust your rules because you're not going to stop it.
So that's the way I do it.
There's a investor called Vinod Khosla.
Who, I really worry about him because he says stuff that just sounds like he's crazy.
I mean, he's presenting himself like, I don't know, like he's stupid, but that couldn't be the case.
So I wonder if there's something else going on.
But he was on CNBC and just called the, he called the podcasters of the All In pod mega extremists.
How could he possibly even be familiar with the podcast or those personalities?
You know, the All In podcast, David Sachs and John And a couple other buddies whose name I keep forgetting.
Sorry about that.
I only remember the two.
Anyway, the all-in pod are people who I imagine might have voted Democrat in a normal time.
I don't know what their affiliations are.
But they present themselves as simply factual patriots, basically.
Dads.
So they have a dad vibe, a patriot vibe, and just a practical vibe.
Like, what makes sense, what doesn't make sense, without all the BS.
And if you just simply try to call balls and strikes, and just call things the way you see them, like, hey, the border seems a little bit too open.
I mean, nothing weird.
Just the most ordinary observations, but the all-in pod can, you know, let you see things through different windows and, you know, more interesting takes.
But does he really think they're mega extremists?
Or is there just something wrong with this guy?
I don't know.
And what's interesting about it is that it's counter to the trend, which we'll talk about in a minute.
There are yet again a few more Biden brain malfunction videos where he tries to talk in public and things don't go well.
I don't need to get the details.
Just be aware that he's failing fast.
Have you seen a video recently of, let's say, his debate performance in 2020?
Have you ever seen that?
Watch Biden's debate in 2020.
He is not the same person.
In 2020, I was saying he's too old and we can't take a risk on this.
But if you see him by today's standard, he looked positively young and vibrant just at the beginning of his term.
He has lost so much.
And indeed, the Wall Street Journal is reporting that both Democrats and Republicans are saying privately that when they meet with him in their same room and they're meeting privately, you're hearing stories like this.
And this is back in January.
I believe he's failed, obviously, even since January.
Would you agree?
I think the last five months, you can see the decline.
It's obvious.
But even in January, people said he spoke so softly at times that people struggled to hear him.
And he would read notes even from the most obvious points.
Meaning that he couldn't handle even the most obvious thing you say about a topic.
And that he would pause for extended periods and sometimes close his eyes for so long that sometimes they didn't know if he was even paying attention to the meeting anymore.
So those are reports from multiple people who have been in the room with him recently.
But counter to that, we have Morning Joe.
Who is here to tell us that not only is Joe Biden sharp, you know, despite everything you see with your own eyes, behind closed doors, he's the sharpest, smartest guy on internet.
Oh my God!
Compared to somebody like McCarthy or any of these other people.
Oh my God!
I can't even tell you how smart Joe Biden is, how on top of it he is, how his brain is like just a perfect machine right now.
Can you believe that Morning Joe actually embarrassingly is pushing the most obviously not true thing as if it's true?
And I watched Mika.
She has what I call a Mika face.
It looks like wife face when your husband is saying some shit that you're not quite buying into yourself.
Do you think that Mika is fully on board with the Biden looks fine to me?
I don't think so.
Look at her face.
The whole time her husband was talking, she's got like a weird little smile, like, yeah, I know what you're saying.
And, you know, I kind of like the direction of it, but I think everybody knows you're full of shit.
So maybe you could tone that down and embarrass me less on TV.
That's what it feels like to me.
Well, here's the funnest part.
On MSNBC, Michael Steele, a well-known prominent Democrat kind of a guy, calls out the fact that billionaires are starting to make Trump look acceptable to other people.
Oh, here it comes.
Even the Democrats have noticed.
That the billionaire class is starting to make Trump look acceptable and normal to people.
Ah!
Which billionaires are we talking about?
Well, the Bill Ackmans, the Elon Musks.
We're talking about the Allen Pod.
We're talking about one of the guys at Blackstone.
I think even Jamie Dimon, not too long ago, said, You know, keep an open mind, right?
So he wasn't anti-Trump either.
So here's what I think.
I think the billionaires are the ones who go first.
Do you know why?
Because they don't have bosses.
The people without bosses are the only ones who can tell the truth in public if they're also rich.
You get that?
It's not a coincidence that the billionaire class is rising in terms of its persuasion power.
It has to, because there's nobody else who can do it.
And you know, I feel, and I see it, and you can almost just, it's just, it's palpable.
The incentive for the so-called billionaires that I mentioned, their incentive seems to be the Spider-Man curse, as far as I can tell.
They do not seem to be driven by partisan politics.
They don't seem to be driven just by profit.
They're not advocating for things necessarily that are just good for them and stuff like that.
The Spider-Man curse, if you don't know what that is, from Spider-Man, with great power comes great responsibility.
Imagine you're a billionaire, you're watching the country dissolve, and you know it's because people can't tell the truth, that Biden's a train wreck and it's just got to be fixed.
What would you do?
Just ask yourself, what would you do if you didn't have to fear anything because you don't have a boss and you're already a billionaire?
And what could go wrong?
You would feel a responsibility to get involved if you'd never been involved in politics before.
Because you're the only ones who can fix it.
Nobody's coming to help.
Nobody's coming to help.
It is just, it's just, uh, the billionaires got to step up and we're watching it happen.
So that is a gigantic, gigantic change.
And it's scary enough that even the Democrats are noticing it.
And not only are billionaires smart, but people look up to them because they want to be like them.
You know, especially if you build something of value.
But this brings me to a comment that I saw Tucker Carlson make.
He was on somebody's podcast, and I'm going to talk about him a little bit more, but he had this interesting theory that what we see as evil, you know, all the destructive things going on that we just sort of collectively think are some form of evil, he says is really people who don't know how to make anything have an impulse to destroy the things Made by people who do know how to make things.
Oh my god, is that on point?
That actually might be the best description of everything we're seeing.
Marxism, Antifa, everything.
And I've told you this story, I think, before.
The first time I discovered this thing, where people will destroy anything that looks like good work from other people, is when I developed the Dilbert comic.
When I was still working at my corporation, at the phone company.
So I had this whiteboard in my cubicle, and every day for a while there, before I was published, I would draw a little comic of this character that came to be Dilbert.
And it became popular around the office, and people would like it.
And here's the thing.
If you can do something like that that's sort of show-offy, it kind of demonstrates you have some kind of genetic quality that somebody might want to mate with.
Now, it'd be the same if I had giant muscles, or if I were tall and had good hair, or if I were a good musician, you know, any kind of talent.
So if you display talent, what it does is it brings up in people the need to destroy you if they don't have talent.
Other people with talent will look at you and say, hey, that's pretty good.
Because they're not afraid, they have talent.
People who don't have talent will find a way to destroy it or find something else wrong with you that means nobody should pay attention to you.
Here's how I discovered it when I would draw Dilbert on my whiteboard.
Men would come into my office who were not exactly killing it in life, you know, just your ordinary cubicle men, and they would find a reason to destroy the comic on my whiteboard.
And it was the damnedest thing.
And women didn't do it.
Women didn't do it.
Ever.
And I'll tell you how they'd do it.
They'd walk in, and they would lean on it.
They would just lean on it.
And they would erase it with the back of their shirt.
Or they'd be making a point, and they'd pick up a magic marker, and they would start drawing whatever their point was, like directly over my drawing.
Or they would pick up the eraser and erase my whiteboard in my office of a drawing that I'd made, and then just start doing whatever they were going to tell me.
And I'm thinking to myself, there's something destructive about this that is so obvious, and it was so consistent.
As soon as I saw a guy walk into my office, I'd say, all right, how long is it going to take?
And I would just watch.
How long it took him to accidentally destroy my artwork.
It was weird.
So I've been watching that all my life, that phenomenon.
Obviously, when Dilbert became successful... Oh, and by the way, it's a running joke on X. When people come at me hard, like, you piece of crap, blah, blah, blah, I'll check their profile.
Quite often, they're people trying to be writers and failing.
More often than not.
or they're trying to be cartoonists and failing.
So they're all in some kind of failed art thing.
So then when they see that I've succeeded, they just have to tear me down.
It's a natural impulse.
And I think that might actually be explaining almost everything we see.
You know, we used to call it income inequality.
And we used to say, hey, you know, if we don't fix the income inequality, the people who don't have are going to come after the people who have, and you've got a civil unrest.
So, you know, you better fix it.
But I think what it turned into is just destruction where people are tearing down your city you built because they can't build it.
They want to, you know, tear down Elon Musk because they can't build it.
I mean, look at the fact that Elon Musk builds, you know, Tesla.
And then some Delaware bunch of punks who couldn't succeed at anything decided to take away his paycheck of $53 billion.
Why'd they do that?
Do you think they did that because that seemed like the right thing to do?
No.
I mean, it might have been purely political, but I think if you see it under Tucker's filter, it actually looks clear.
They just didn't like the fact that there was a male who had, you know, 11 children and could impregnate anybody he wants, basically.
And that he was just killing it in life and they had to just attack him because they couldn't handle the stress of, you know, being less than him by so much.
So look for that effect.
It's everywhere.
It's fake poll season.
Newsweek has some fake polls where Joe Biden is suddenly leading Donald Trump in multiple battleground states.
Oh, yeah.
I'm sure that really happened.
I'm sorry.
And if you read all the way to the end of the article, it'll be like, well, they started the poll online and then they... I said, wait, what?
They started it online and then some of it's not online?
What good is an online poll?
Why in the world would you report an online poll without saying, OK, this is not scientific, but we did an online poll?
Now, I don't mind that, because at least you know what you're getting.
But you have to go all the way to the end to find out it's not even a little bit credible.
And I think I read the entire article without seeing who did the poll.
I think it might have been there, but I don't.
Normally a story about polling, they put the polling entity in the first paragraph.
Right?
You've all seen stories about poll results.
It's the first paragraph.
I'm not even sure it was in the story in this case.
So it's exactly what it looks like.
It's fake poll time and the fakest of the fake news.
We'll be the ones that are reporting them.
So Newsweek, you should just assume, is a bullshit publication and just a Democrat organ at this point.
All right, Rasmussen had a poll that 63% of Democrats believe the judge should sentence Trump to prison.
I don't know.
These kinds of polls are just people going to line up on political grounds.
Yeah, I don't know what to make much of this.
Everybody thinks the other side should go to jail.
All right.
Could have asked me.
I'm seeing some smart people say that the prosecution of Hunter for the gun charges might not be what we think it is.
On the surface, it looks like, oh, justice is blind.
And even the president's son can be, you know, charged and go to jail for crimes.
Because that's how good our system is.
It's a fair system.
But he's being tried in Delaware, where we're expecting a hung jury of people just like him.
Maybe the judge is fake.
Maybe jury nullification.
So you're basically seeing a situation which might be a completely fake trial to show the country that, well, you know, there's no lawfare against Trump.
Because look, even Hunter Biden's being, you know, being handled by the law.
So, so it must be fair, because it's happening to Hunter.
Happened to Trump.
I mean, that's as fair as you can get, right?
Well, as others have pointed out, the gun charge is the one most, the most disconnected from, from his father.
And the one that doesn't get you to anywhere near any discovery about anything that Hunter did with Burisma or Ukraine.
Is that a coincidence?
The only one we're seeing is the only one that has nothing to do with politics.
And it's the only one that makes Hunter look a little sympathetic because Republicans and people like me say, you know what?
We do like people to have some flexibility about owning guns.
Until a crime has been committed, that's a different situation.
And although he did seem to be reckless with his guns, I can't say it's the wrong decision in this particular case, but it's probably not a coincidence that he's being tried for the only thing that would divert you from Joe Biden, The only thing that would give you maybe some sympathy for Hunter, because it's really about his addiction, and I do have sympathy for that.
And at the same time, he might have no chance of getting convicted.
So it's everything.
It's everything for Democrats.
They can pretend that the law matters.
They can get him off and say, well, I guess it was nothing there.
And then they can say, and obviously the lawfare against Trump is real.
Because look, the law is operating wherever there's a crime.
So it looks like it's bullshit.
Facebook slash meta is rumored to be thinking about testing unstoppable ads where you can't skip them.
Oh my god.
Why don't they just tape my eyeballs open and feed me ads?
Anyway.
In the Hill, the publication in the Hill, Democrats are saying that Biden needs to appear more in touch with voters' needs, especially inflation.
Well, I thought their plan was to say Trump was the cause of the inflation.
And I would like to introduce the theme for today, which is everything the Democrats are doing is imaginary.
It's all imaginary.
So Biden's going to pretend to address inflation, and he's going to pretend it was Trump's fault.
That's imaginary.
But on the border, since the border was his weakest political issue, Biden's issuing some executive order that looks like it's completely a hoax, meaning that it will stop a few people, but it won't come anywhere near, you know, ending the crisis at the border.
But he'll sell it like it did.
He's going to sell it like, well, it's as far as we can go without those Republicans being useful to us.
So I won't give you the details.
You'll see the details on the other news, but it's supposed to put a limit on the asylum seekers, but there are so many other holes that it leaves open.
It's not even clear you'll know the difference, really.
So he's got a fake case about inflation.
He's got a fake executive order about the border.
And well, but he's also got a fake Gaza peace plan, which he keeps claiming Israel is behind and Israel says, well, not really.
So he's trying to make it look as though he's got some peace coming.
But that appears to be fake and just for politics.
So he's got a fake economic idea about inflation, a fake border idea, and a fake Gaza peace plan.
Meanwhile, Jake Sullivan was meeting with the families of American hostages, and he told them that if the president's peace plan, which is fake, gets adopted, Then maybe that would help free their families, the hostages who are Americans.
Now, this is another example of Democrats failing to understand human motivation in every domain.
What happens if you negotiate with the people who have your hostages?
Everybody knows that.
It makes them do more of it.
If you want to have more hostages, Give them something before they give the hostages back.
Let me tell you how you should deal with the hostages.
The America should give Hamas a target list.
Things that are going to disappear in the order that they will disappear.
Until all of our hostages are back, and then after they're back, we'll maybe try to help them with a peace plan.
But until then, Israel can do whatever the fuck they want.
Let me put it this way.
As long as Hamas has one American hostage, and we know it, Israel can slaughter the whole fucking bunch of them, because what are you going to do?
They're basically killing their own people at this point.
Because if they're going to make their own citizens hostages, and our citizens, unfortunately the only way you can prevent this happening in the future is to do things that nobody with good conscience would want to do.
But, fortunately, we have people who are willing to do hard things.
And they're very willing to do it.
So I think we should just say to Hamas, here's the deal.
Here's all the stuff that's going to disappear.
And then, of course, they're going to call the bluff.
And then you say, all right, we just gave some mother of all bombs to Israel, and they're going to drop them on this neighborhood.
So you better get out of that neighborhood.
And you just make the whole neighborhood disappear.
Ideally after people get out.
But unless you go savage, they're just going to keep taking Americans.
So, and by the way, you know, who knows if we could really ever get them back.
They may already be dead.
But yeah, this is the worst idea ever.
So imaginary peace deals.
Wow.
So when do we notice that everything that Biden has done is imaginary?
So he ran for office on the fine people hoax and the drinking bleach hoax.
Hillary Clinton ran on the Russia collusion hoax.
Now he's got a fake border plan, a fake Gaza plan, plan to blame Trump for inflation.
He's got a fake war in Ukraine, fake in the sense that they're not telling us the real reason we're in Ukraine.
Am I right?
We're there for energy.
We're a pirate ship.
We're a pirate ship trying to take the booty from another pirate ship.
But he's telling us we're fighting for, I don't know, democracy or something.
Yeah, it's all fake.
Then you've got the lawfare against Trump.
That's all fake.
You've got the polls showing Biden pulling ahead.
That's all fake.
You've got the Morning Joe and the MSNBC crowd still protecting the Democrats.
All with fake news.
Um, and now they want, here's the things they want us to believe.
By the way, did you know that dementia causes paranoia?
Dementia is well known to cause paranoia and confusion and memory problems.
Um, let me tell you some of the things that Biden is saying about Trump.
And you tell me if this sounds like a person in the right mind, or does it sound like somebody with dementia fueled paranoia?
Trump's going to steal your democracy.
This could be the last election ever.
Trump has dictator tendencies.
Trump destroyed our norms.
Trump brings chaos.
Trump snapped when he lost the election.
Trump is a felonious insurrectionist.
Trump will be worse than last time.
Trump thinks he's above the law.
Do you see the pattern?
Every fucking thing that Joe Biden is promoting is fake.
Now let's compare it to the other side.
Do Republicans sometimes promise things they don't deliver?
Sure.
But even if you take something like, you know, Trump promising the wall and not quite delivering, he sure tried like hell.
There was nothing fake about that.
He tried like hell.
Do you blame him for saying Mexico will pay for the wall?
Well, not really.
We all knew that was just for fun.
Right?
He's not really trying to sell that.
So you've got Republicans who are suggesting specific real-world things, and you've got Democrats who have nothing to run on because their whole world is falling apart.
They've destroyed everything that we care about, and we know it because we're watching it in real time.
So the only thing they have is dementia-fueled paranoia that they're trying to get you to buy into.
All right, we got this dementia-fueled Paranoid guy and he's gonna complain about his candy getting too small.
So maybe you should change your vote because mr. Small candy said so I'm getting tired of being the only one pointing out that the entire Democratic platform for years has been nothing but fucking bullshit We can't say that we can't make that the whole story that nothing they do is real everything is an op Everything they do is a fucking op Or a hoax, which is like an op.
Anyway, here's some other things Dr. Carlson said that were just so fun.
He said he met Klaus Schwab himself, and he doesn't really fear the WEF because Klaus Schwab is just an idiot, and most of the people in power are idiots too.
So, I don't think you have to worry about the all-powerful World Economic Forum.
It's just idiots having a party.
Now Elon Musk has a view not too far from that, that it's basically a club for rich people and don't worry about it too much.
And I buy into that.
I don't think the World Economic Forum is why we're fighting in Ukraine, do you?
Do you?
Do you think that's what they would have picked?
I don't think so.
Tucker also believes that Human beings are mating with non-human beings.
They're some kind of entities that walk the earth looking like people and have always been here, you know, throughout time.
And every culture seems to talk about them.
Okay.
And he does believe the literal truth of his religion and the Bible.
So, And he thinks that the government knows this and won't tell us.
Now, I haven't seen too many things that seem less believable to me than that.
But it's so interesting that it's coming from Tucker.
Because so much of what he says is so right on point, as I mentioned earlier.
But there's something about Tucker that makes him different from other people.
I also think he's got, he was talking to somebody who believes that the Secret Sonic Ray is real.
So he has a lot of people who have claims of UFOs and aliens and stuff like that.
And my take on Tucker, because he said it directly, he said it directly, he kind of likes to believe in some of the fantastic stuff.
But where you don't see it is in politics.
Meaning that he seems to have some really good way of separating the real world, the politics, because he talks about it in the most real-world way you ever talk about anything.
But when he talks about his religious beliefs or his belief about reality, he seems to have a lifestyle preference for believing, let's say, fantastical things, because they're fun.
You know, his religion gives him benefits, so don't argue with him about his religion.
It works.
It totally works.
I mean, you can even observe it from a distance that his choice of religion works for him.
It looks like it works to me.
Even if it's not your religion, it looks like it works for him.
So, I think Tucker has to be seen as a lifestyle believer.
Let me give you an example.
I don't necessarily think, if you put a gun to my head, I wouldn't necessarily say that aliens built the pyramids.
But I really like thinking it.
It's a lifestyle belief.
So I can't say a believe-believe, you know, like if you're gonna, you know, murder my dog if I get the wrong answer, I might go, all right, it's not aliens after all.
But you know, it's easy to adopt non- You know, beliefs that don't matter, because they don't affect your life, if they're fun.
So, that's my best guess, is he has fun beliefs that don't have any impact on your life, they're just fun.
And then in the real world, he seems really careful about sticking to what's real when he talks about the real world.
Anyway.
Let's take a look at Tucker Carlson's theory.
That people who can't build things will destroy the things built by other people.
Are there any examples of that?
About Steve Jobs.
Steve Jobs was a builder.
He built things.
His wife, his widow, seems to be active in politics and the side of politics that is destroying everything.
It wouldn't be true that Steve Jobs built, and his widow is destroying what, at least what good there is in the country.
So she's the, what did she buy?
The Atlantic?
She owns the Atlantic, right?
Which is just a propaganda outfit.
What about Jeff Bezos?
Jeff Bezos built a gigantic, you know, most successful company, and then he gets divorced, and what's his wife do?
She donates to all the organizations that are destructive.
No, she doesn't think of it that way, I'm sure.
But you can see it.
So it seems to me that...
You've got Elon Musk will build a company, but idiots in Delaware will try to take his money away.
Bezos builds a company and his ex-wife takes half his money and uses it to destroy the country.
Jobs builds the greatest company, his wife uses money to destroy things.
Now if you ask them, they wouldn't say they're destroying anything, and I believe that they would believe it.
It's just that the impulse to destroy what better people built is so strong.
So strong.
I can tell you that in my journey from having no money to being well off, when I had no money, I would have destroyed things.
The idea of putting graffiti on somebody else's asset, somebody rich, Was actually attractive to me at one point in my life.
Do you know why?
Because I was a jealous little fuck who had nothing.
I felt it.
I'm not speculating what it feels like to have nothing and be surrounded by people who have a lot.
I absolutely felt a destructive impulse toward their success.
When I became successful, you know this is the old story, you become more conservative if you become successful, because you don't want anybody to take it away from you.
I became much more alarmed to see assets destroyed.
Now when I see graffiti on somebody's nice expensive building, I don't say, well you had it coming, you know, clean it up yourself, you got plenty of money.
Now I think, what the hell are you doing destroying somebody's beautiful thing they built?
And I think that has a lot to do with the animosity toward Trump.
Trump is not only somebody who apparently built things, you know, big beautiful buildings, but he also brags.
If you add the bragging to the success, you trigger people to want to destroy you because they're not successful.
And that's what we see.
The least successful people want to destroy him.
What do the billionaires want?
The billionaires are just looking at it and saying, OK, who can be a better president?
They might disagree.
But they're not trying to destroy other billionaires because they have their own stuff.
All right.
New York Times is reporting that the GOP is looking for revenge.
And indeed, on social media and other places, we do see people, you know, Talking about putting lists together of Democrats who should be investigated and tried should Trump come to office.
I'm not sure that's the best impulse.
My advice to you would be to cool it on the revenge stuff.
Because, first of all, you shouldn't call it revenge.
Because it's hard to back that.
But I know what it is.
I mean, to me it's more a mutually assured destruction.
Meaning you have to establish a precedent that if the other team is going to go to that level of badness, you're going to match it.
And they're not going to like it.
So, there is something to be said for, you know, creating a disincentive to do more of it.
I wouldn't call it revenge, though.
It's more like creating a disincentive.
And it's more like finding out what's true.
Just looking for the truth.
So, also, America First Legal, I believe that's Stephen Miller's entity he created, is suing the Department of Justice for records related to Key figures in the New York case versus Trump to find out what they did to coordinate with the White House.
So apparently they asked for but did not get records under the FOIA.
They wanted to get records about Matthew Colangelo.
Because he was a key figure in the Biden administration, but he left that to go work on the lawfare against Trump.
And it's a completely good question, which is, hmm, maybe we should know what conversations happened, because this looks like a political prosecution in every way.
It looks like it.
And so America First Legal is going to say, well, let's find out.
Let's look at your documents.
Let us find out if this was political.
Because it looks like it.
So America First Legal is the only thing that looks like the Republic to me.
We don't see the press doing what the press is supposed to do.
We don't see the politicians do what the politicians we'd want them to do anyway.
But America First Legal is doing everything I want them to do.
That's everything I want to see happen.
I want to see the bad guys get pushed.
I want to make sure that the lawfare on the left is matched with some lawfare on the right for disincentive purposes, you know, not for revenge.
I don't really have a feeling about revenge, but I would certainly like to have a mutually assured destruction in case either side gets out of hand.
All right, now the big payoff.
This is the part that if you were nice enough to last this long, I'm going to tell you something provocative.
You know that for a long time I've been trying to figure out the mystery that is George Soros.
Because people said to me, Scott, he's behind the funding of all these things that are bad.
I'm dismissing truths that scare me.
The trolls are here.
Trolls.
Which truths am I dismissing?
I just want to see if they have a specific What am I dismissing?
Anybody?
It's called justice.
I don't care what you call it.
Do you have anything to actually say?
Or are you just being trolls today?
All right.
It looks like they have nothing to actually say.
All right, so here's my provocative hypothesis about why George Soros is doing what he did.
So apparently, back in the early 90s, when he started drawing up his plans for his open society, he had some lofty goals, which I have to admit sound pretty darn good on paper.
Now, I haven't looked into them, but my understanding is it would be things like, wouldn't be great if people could immigrate to where the work is.
Right?
Wouldn't it be great if people could improve their lives by being able to move from a bad place to a good place?
Now, that sounds pretty damn good on paper.
Because you assume, you know, it's just obvious that you wouldn't do uncontrolled immigration.
But wouldn't it be great if you could get a work permit?
You know, some kind of an easier process?
So, you know, everybody's economy would be better.
Now, the economics of that and the logic of that are actually really strong.
Because every time that you give people more freedom, they can make more money.
It's pretty much one-to-one.
More freedom, more money.
More freedom, more money.
As long as you've got crime under control.
Freedom within the legal structure, not freedom to do crime.
So on paper, that makes a lot of sense to me.
With my economics background, I go, you know what?
It does make sense that if you increase people's mobility, across borders that probably everybody would do well, as long as you managed it right.
Now, like everything in the world, if you do it wrong, well, it's a disaster, right?
Now, apparently there's also something about the justice system and how it was unfair to black Americans and minorities in general.
Now, that's true.
And suppose that they said our solution is to vastly increase the diversity in the justice system, and then we wouldn't worry so much that it's, you know, white racism that's causing these, you know, what seems to be imbalances and sentencing and other things.
Now on paper, I love that.
I don't have a problem with that at all.
Yes.
If minority members of my country are complaining that they seem to be, in their opinion, their lived experience, they're mistreated, then it seems to me an obvious solution to increase the diversity of highly qualified candidates and just have a better perspective in the whole legal system.
And that feels like an advantage to me.
But here's the problem.
Those things didn't work at all.
Now we know that.
We're seeing that, you know, things that are getting funded are like crazy things, like Black Lives Matter and TIFA and open borders.
And so there's this huge disconnect between what sounded pretty rational to me in the 90s, but now we've tried it.
We know what works and what doesn't.
Why would you still do it?
Why wouldn't you say, wow, that didn't work, or we still like these things, but we're going to have to put much better guardrails on them.
Why wouldn't you do something like that?
Now, the theories I've heard just don't make any sense to me.
Elon Musk, one of the smartest people around, says that he thinks that George Soros just hates humanity.
I don't think there's a chance that's true.
I really don't.
I don't think there's any chance that's true.
He's seen the darkest side of humanity because he was around during the Holocaust, right?
He saw it personally.
So yeah, he's seen the darkest side of humans, but I don't know.
Do you put all of that effort into this very specific way of moving things just because you hate humanity?
I mean, there must be way better ways to hate humanity.
It's a lot of work to hate humanity in that very specific, hard work kind of a way.
So I don't believe that.
Then there are others who say, well, it's a Marxist thing.
You know, all the bad stuff is Marxist.
But you can't tell me that the greatest capitalist of all time is secretly funding the Marxist so they can take all of his money away someday and his family will be locked up in jail or something.
That doesn't make sense.
So I don't believe that it could be because George Soros hates humanity.
I don't believe he's pro-Marxist.
That would be crazy.
I mean, it would just be crazy.
And then other people said, no, he destabilizes things so he can make money.
Right.
But not the country you're in.
Not the main place you've chosen to live.
You don't destabilize the country you're in.
That's not how that works.
I mean, if you did, I mean, I suppose you could make money, but it's not really the right play.
I mean, you wouldn't expect, like, a smart guy to do that.
Oh, here we go.
I knew you were going to hit me with the all-capital Jewish conspiracy.
So, we've got the all-capital people shouting, It's the Jews!
It's the Jews, Scott!
Why are you ignoring the obvious?
It's the Jews!
All right, so you guys just keep screaming.
You know what would be easier?
It would be easier if you never came to my live stream again.
Because I can tell you that screaming in all caps that it's the Jews is not good persuasion.
You just look like a fucking piece of shit who doesn't know anything about anything, honestly.
So I'm not going to deal with that directly.
But here's my hypothesis that ties it all together.
You ready?
Dig it in.
Number one.
You've seen that Huma Abedin is now, allegedly, dating Alex Soros.
Just hold that in your mind for a moment.
We'll get back to it.
If you were a FBI profiler and a forensic, let's say, money person, And you were trying to figure out, like, why money is going from one place to another.
But you were going to use FBI stereotyping, profiling kind of thing, which I hate to say, could be a little sexist and racist.
For example, let's say an FBI profiler finds out that there's been a mass shooter.
Does the profiler say, okay, I think it's about even money.
It's a woman or a man.
No, no, no, they don't do that.
They go full sexist and they say, all right, it's a man.
And then if it's a certain kind of mass murder, do they say, hmm, I think, uh, I think an Asian was involved in this.
No, they say, oh, this kind of looks like a white guy crime.
Am I right?
There are just some crimes that just scream white guy.
So that's what FBI profiling is, I believe.
Where you're looking for these general, you know, tendencies and statistical things.
Now.
If I, let me give you a, I'm going to work at this slowly so I can give you the big finish in a minute.
Suppose I told you that there were two billionaires.
One was white and one was black.
And there were two groups getting funded.
One was Ukraine and one was Black Lives Matter.
But you didn't have confirmation which billionaire was funding Ukraine and which one was funding Black Lives Matter.
Now, it could go either way.
We all agree on that, right?
Could be that the black billionaire cares about Ukraine.
Could be the white billionaire cares about Black Lives Matter.
But if you're an FBI profiler and you had to visit one of them to confirm which way it was, you'd probably You know, if you wanted to know his BLM, you'd probably try the black guy first, because people like to fund things they have some kind of personal association with.
If you see that, if you see a celebrity is helping raise money for a specific disease, sorry, for a specific disease, do you say to yourself, oh, they randomly picked a specific disease?
Or do you say, no, probably they either had experience with it or a family member.
Because these are the kind of tendencies you see.
So look at George Soros' funding, and all the things he's funded, from Black Lives Matter, to Antifa, to LGBTQ things, to open borders.
And then look at George Soros.
Does it fit?
In the comments, somebody's still yelling in all caps, THE JEWS!
THE JEWS!
Let me finish my hypothesis, which doesn't have anything to do with that, by the way.
All right, here's my hypothesis.
If I were to guess, Who was the billionaire who was funding all the things I mentioned?
I wouldn't say a Hungarian octogenarian white guy.
It's not impossible, you know, if he's just ultra lefty or whatever, but it's not the first thing you think of.
The first thing I would think of was that the funding was coming from a gay black American Who lived in either L.A.
or New York and was, you know, had sort of maybe a Marxist open borders bent.
Would you agree?
But that's not George Soros.
But wait, we have to update.
George Soros is not even in charge anymore.
He's already turned it over to Alex Soros.
Now Alex Soros, as we've been told, is dating Uma Abedin.
How does that make sense?
Again, he's not a gay black man on either coast.
He doesn't seem like he's a Marxist.
I mean, he seems like he'd probably be a capitalist.
How does it make sense?
Well, somebody clued me into his prior relationships, and if you believe all the photographs on the internet, of which there are many, before Uma Abedin, and I don't know the timing exactly, but it looked like he was similar age to what he is now, he had some kind of a relationship with a gay black fashion designer from LA.
And if you look at the photos, they're very close, or what they were.
And if they are, I don't know, maybe it's still going on.
But the look of it is that he was the dominant partner.
You can't miss it.
So the partner was a very large man, and Alex Soros is a smaller man.
And when you see them sort of posing for pictures, the larger man is holding the smaller man almost like a submissive.
So imagine if you would, the panic there would be if you're a top Democrat and a normal person.
Suppose you're Hillary, let's call her normal for now, or you're Barack Obama, or you're just any one of the normal, you know, Carrie Democrats, and you see that your biggest problem Is that George Soros keeps funding the craziest people in the world.
And you have to explain it, because it's part of your party, and you can't do anything, because he also funds you!
Right?
So what are you going to do?
I'll tell you what I'd do.
I would send my agent, Huma Abedin, to control Alex Soros.
I would find a way to get him out of that relationship with his boyfriend.
And I would make sure that there was an adult in the room that reported to Hillary Clinton and the adults in the Democratic Party who was making sure that he did not do crazy shit.
Now you're saying to yourself, Scott, you're talking as if Alexander Soros is like a moron or a child or something.
That's exactly what I'm saying.
If you've heard him talk, which is rare, because he doesn't give interviews that I've seen, But I did see him talking at some event, and he seemed to be a moron.
As in, really a moron.
Not like the usual kind, where we say, oh, this politician's a moron.
No, I mean the real kind.
I mean like, oh my God, kind.
So it seems to me that you're watching a Clinton op on their own team.
It looks like Clinton and Obama realized they had to take control of Alexander Soros because they need to stop him funding the crazy shit and keeping the border open and funding people who are going to cause riots and all kinds of insane things because they can't defend it when trying to get Biden back in office.
So did you know that Huma Abedin is 10 years older than Alexander Soros?
Did you see the photo, the only photo, the only photo of them in something that looks like a date?
If you look at his hand, you know, she's cuddling up to him at a booth in a restaurant.
He's got his arm around her.
But look at his hand.
His hand looks like this.
He's got his hand in a little like a loose fist while it's around her waist.
Who poses for a photo with their girlfriend Puts their hand around their back and does not put their hand flat on the body of the person.
Who hugs somebody with an open hand?
Well, you don't do that to your girlfriend.
And I don't think that somebody with billions of dollars is dating somebody 10 years older.
Can you give me an example of the other billionaire who decided to date somebody 10 years older?
Has there ever been a billionaire who ever voluntarily got into a relationship, a male billionaire, who got into a relationship with somebody 10 years older?
Even once?
Now, I mean, I realize that's an ugly thought, but I've never seen it.
Have you?
So, I propose to you that this is an op, and that there's a game within the game, In which the Democrats are trying to wrestle control of this big bank called Soros.
I believe that the senior Soros is checked out and had no idea where his money was going or what damage it was doing.
Because that's the part I didn't understand.
I didn't understand the correction.
I understood the original goals.
They sound great on paper.
I don't understand the lack of correction.
And the only way that makes sense is if there was somebody Who was controlling Alexander Soros to do the very worst things that didn't make sense at all, but he was not capable enough or strong enough to say no, or even to know what was wrong.
And so the fixer was sent in, and it's Huma.
What do you say?
misresolved?
Well, here's the thing as As long as Alexander Soros doesn't give interviews, and I'm assuming he's turning them down because he would be the most interesting person you could ever interview.
It's the most relevant to everything.
There's a reason for that, right?
Now, if I'm wrong, it would be easy to sort it out.
You know, just have an interview with him, ask him the obvious questions, see if he can answer them.
Never going to happen.
Never going to happen.
But I think Hillary's got it under control.
All right.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is all I have on that.
There's something you didn't see on your other podcasts.
All right.
And again, it's just speculative.
So just in case somebody wants to sue me, I want to say, I don't know that any of this is true.
I'm saying that if I were an FBI profiler, that's what it looks like.
So it's my working assumption at the moment that it's just exactly what it looks like.
There's just a weak person with billions of dollars and people are wrestling to control them.
And I think that's the whole story.
All right.
I'm going to say bye to the people on X and YouTube and Rumble.
And, uh, but Macron wasn't a billionaire.
He got in his relationship before he was a billionaire, or before he was important.
So if you could come up with other examples, it'd be fun.
All right, everybody, I'm going to say, uh, going to stick with just the locals people, but I know there's a delay here.
