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, God's Debris Complete Works, AI Predictability, AI Truth Limitations, Trans Miss Maryland, Senator Fetterman, Nicole Shanahan, Brilliant Unseen Biden, DEI System Failure, President Trump San Francisco, David Sacks, Donny Deutsch, Nobody Above The Law, Jailing Steve Bannon, Hunter Biden Trial, Katie Hobbs, Thomas Massie, Rescinding Congressional Subpoenas, Anti-Republican Lawfare, America First Legal, President Biden Normandy, Trump Talking Points, George Clooney Wife ICC, Smugidiot Face, Israel Hamas War, 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
Remember when Apple was accused of slowing down its phones to make you buy a new one?
Do you remember that?
And we all thought we were going crazy.
It's like it feels like it's slowing down.
I can't be right.
No, it turned out it was true.
Well, there's something like that that happens with the computer.
And I'm in that mode now.
So what happens is almost every time I use my main Macintosh computer, Apple, it gives me an unusual error that I haven't seen before.
It's always out of some kind of space.
It's out of scratch space or it's out of disk space.
And no matter how much you delete, it doesn't make any difference.
And this will be like the fifth computer in a row I had to just replace because it would keep pretending it was out of space.
Now, is that an accident?
Because it doesn't feel like it.
It feels like it's intentional.
All right.
Well, welcome to Coffee with Scott Adams.
It's off to a sketchy start, but if you'd like to take it up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, smooth human brains, all you need for that is a cupper, a mug, or a glass, a tankard, a chalice, a stein, a canteen, a jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of dopamine at the end of the day.
A thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It's the best way to kick off the weekend.
It happens now.
Go! Go!
When your computer embarrasses you in front of your live audience, it's time to replace your computer.
Well, I would only correct one part of that statement.
Nothing embarrasses me.
I'm quite fortunate to have completely lost that ability to be embarrassed.
It annoyed me.
It annoyed me.
All right, here's the news.
It turns out I will be upgrading the security at my home.
I thought I had good security already, but now there's a flamethrowing robot dog for $9,400 from Therminator, and it's a A quadruped robot that can shoot a flame 30 feet, which I feel like is just enough.
Because if the robot's fast enough, it can chase down bad guys and set them on fire.
Now, what's going to stop me from getting one?
Can I literally just write a check and I'm going to get a flamethrowing robot dog delivered to me?
And how programmable is it?
Is it remote control, or does it get to make some of its own decisions?
Because I'd like to just give us some names.
Like, you see this picture?
All right.
This is my neighbor, Bob.
Bob has never returned the lawnmower he borrowed two years ago.
If you see Bob, light him up.
No, I wouldn't do that.
I wouldn't do that.
I don't have a neighbor named Bob.
I might, but... Jonathan Haidt reports it over in the UK.
There's a whole bunch of secondary schools that are banning phones now.
Banning phones, so there's 17 secondary schools in South London.
Now, it's just a start, but can you believe the phones were ever allowed in class?
There's something about this story I don't understand.
Why would a phone ever be allowed in class?
How many of the kids are using their phone under the desk?
Do any of you have kids in high school?
Have you ever tried to text them during the school day?
Doesn't take long to respond.
You can text your kid anytime during the school day to get a response.
That's not right.
That's definitely not right.
If you haven't tried it, you should.
Anyway.
Here's the most important story of the day.
My new book, God's Debris, The Complete Works, which includes God's Debris, the sequel, The Religion War, and a new short story, Lucky House, now available on Amazon.
You can buy it right now.
Now, you can see that it's a big proper book.
The first two books that I mentioned were smallish books.
So combining them, since one was a sequel anyway, made sense.
So for the first time, you've got your perfect Father's Day gift.
Perfect Father's Day gift.
Works well for mothers too, but your father is more of a sure thing.
So if you've got somebody who's a reader, if you look at my pinned post, you'll see that I interviewed AI about the book.
because I trained it on the book and then I just asked it to answer questions. And I've decided I'm going to do what I call the Dale Carnegie marketing for the book. I've told this story before, it's just my favorite story probably of any story in the business world. When I took the Dale Carnegie course, I was working at the phone company and we were told we could go to a meeting
in which the leader of the Dale Carnegie in our area would promote their class and then you could decide if you want to sign up.
So I saw the best sales pitch I'd ever seen in my life.
The guy who's trying to sell it says, you don't want to hear from me.
I'm going to have some people who took the class come up here and tell you what they thought of it.
Now, because the class was about learning how to speak in public, off the top of your head, you know, without much preparation, it was the most impressive display of sales I've ever seen.
He calls just a student, somebody who just took the class.
Hey, you want to come up here and tell us about it?
Jumps up in front of a big room full of people, gives this great animated, you know, presentation with no notes.
And then when he's done, he goes, ah, another one.
He calls up another student, does the same thing.
And I'm like, you got me, signing up.
Whatever you did to those two people, you need to do that to me, because that was a superpower.
I just watched two superhumans, who probably were just regular humans, get up and do something that's the scariest thing in life, which is talk without notes to a big room full of people.
You know, without even, you know, they probably thought about it in advance, but no notes.
And sure enough, I learned the technique, as did every person who took the class with me, and we could all do it.
We could all do it.
But what was more impressive about that is that the customers sold the product.
So I'm going to do that with this book.
So I'm going to, instead of doing interviews, although I might do some of those, instead of doing interviews, I'm going to have people interview me.
So I'm going to publish a link maybe later today, if not today, tomorrow or something, and I'll let you just People who have read the book, come in and tell me what they thought about it.
And that will be my marketing.
So, don't listen to me, listen to the people who read it.
That works especially well with this one.
Because as of this morning, it's a bestseller in philosophy and spiritual growth, bestseller in free will and determinism, and a bestseller in metaphysical science fiction books.
And if I were to describe the book, I probably wouldn't use any of those words.
So it's almost impossible to describe, Because it was written not to be a normal book.
And when you hear other people's experience with it, you're going to say, that's not normal.
Whatever that is you're talking about, that's not what happens when you read a book.
But it will happen with this one.
All right.
I thought it was just me, because I couldn't get my AI agents to do anything.
I tried the Delphi AI and the ChatGPT GPTs, where you can make your own little customized agent to answer questions as you would, or answer customer questions.
And I couldn't make it work.
And then I saw somebody who's in that space posting that if you're worried about AI taking over the world, just spend an afternoon trying to make An AI agent do what you want.
It can't be done.
And I finally thought, okay, good.
I'm not crazy.
Because it seemed to me that it's unsolvable by its nature.
Not that I couldn't solve it.
Not that I didn't have the time or the patience or the know-how.
Not that I couldn't ask somebody's opinion.
It's increasingly clear it's unsolvable.
And here's what I mean.
If you wanted your agent to, let's say, represent your product or yourself, it can never do that.
Because it makes shit up that you don't want it to be associated with you.
So in other words, you're never going to approve a weak version of yourself because it will degrade your brand.
So I made a couple of versions of myself in an AI agent, but I wouldn't want you to see them.
Because it's not smart.
I could give you much better answers myself.
You know, shorter ones, more to the point.
So it doesn't really, it can't really represent a person.
But it also can't represent a product or a fact, because it hallucinates.
And even when it talks about me, it will just make up an opinion or just make up some stuff.
What application does that work for?
I can't even think of one.
The only application I've found so far that AI might be always useful for is brainstorming.
It's really good at giving you some different looks so that you can figure out what you want to do.
I use it for art.
But after brainstorming, I don't know what it would be good for.
I'm not even sure it would be good for, like, relationships.
You know, somebody making a bot to talk to them.
I feel like there's a cap on how good that can get.
Because they're a little bit repetitive, and they become predictable almost immediately.
So once your AI becomes predictable, which is what happened when I tested one, I tested one that was like a person that you could have a friend.
Once it's predictable, you're just not interested.
And they become predictable right away.
They'll never do anything provocative.
There's a whole bunch of topics they won't talk about.
Nothing interesting.
So I'm going to make, here is my, Oh, and then there's a new example today that if you ask Microsoft Copilot who won the 2020 election, it says it won't answer.
It can't answer.
It can't answer who won the 2020 election.
Now, I assume that's just because it's controversial and political.
So here's the other problem.
We will never let AI tell us what's true.
Because we don't want people to know what's true.
We want them to know what our narrative is.
So people are going to turn off truth on AI when they have control of AI and when it's not saying their narrative.
So there isn't really any hope that AI will ever tell the truth.
So if it can't be accurate in facts, It won't even be inclined to tell you the truth, because it'll be programmed to give you the narrative, and you can't get consistent answers, or when you do, it just becomes boring.
I have a feeling these are unfixable.
But then worse, if you tell, some of the programs allow you to give strict rules.
For example, you could say, no matter what, always say, you know, this at the end of your answer.
It'll only do it sometimes.
You can tell it to do something every time, and it'll just sometimes do it, but sometimes not.
You can't really live with that.
And here's the most simple, dumbest example.
Lots of times you ask it for something where you'd want it to give you a link, but apparently if it reads the link in one of your source materials, it can't make it clickable.
I can't even make it show the raw link.
It covers it up with its own little label that's not clickable.
So it's not even copyable and pasteable.
I mean, really simple stuff it can't do.
And it doesn't look like that's fixable.
Because here's what I learned that I think I understand.
That even if you tell your AI to do this, like a programming command that's on top of its AI, your common sense says, okay, the AI will do what it does.
And then your programming rule will kick in.
And then it will do that, because that's the last thing, the last program.
It won't.
The AI will overrule your specific directions.
Sometimes.
Just because it wants to.
I don't know why.
Nobody knows why.
How is that fixable?
Unfortunately, it's fixable in only one way.
And here's my prediction.
It's going to be fixed by human beings telling you what's true and hard coding it.
And when you think you're talking to AI, you won't be.
In other words, the best they're going to be able to do is if you're talking about a topic that AI doesn't want to answer, it will transfer from AI to standard database, you know, computer interface, but you won't necessarily know it.
You might think you're talking to AI, but it's just going to move over to a purely programmed mode, because it has to tell you what they want it to tell you and nothing else.
It's got to prove the narrative.
It's got to support the product.
It's got to be a good look for the person it's representing.
And it can't do that on its own.
So you're going to have, I predict, the rise of totally fake AI.
Where you as a user believe you're using AI, but maybe it's only your first experience.
And then as soon as you start asking questions that get a little bit outside of the comfortable zone, it's going to switch over to a non-AI mode.
And I don't think there's another way to do it.
So therefore, it will never be real AI.
It'll just be people who are programmed at telling you what they want you to think.
Just like today.
Well, you know how wars are all bad, except that sometimes you invent things or change things, and you end up with some lasting benefit.
I don't know if this is a good example, but in World War II, was it, they developed radar, and probably it happened faster because it was a war.
And probably the nuclear bomb was developed faster because it was a war.
So, technology develops pretty fast, and you've seen that with the drones.
The drones are being developed faster because of Ukraine.
But there's another thing that's more positive, which is since the lights, the power is at risk from Russia.
Apparently Westinghouse is going strong in Ukraine to redo their existing, or at least help with their existing power plants and then build a bunch more ones.
But in the process, they've apparently figured out a way more efficient, economical, faster way to do some of the stuff, like creating fuel.
So without the details, I'll just tell you that because there's a war in Ukraine, it will allow Westinghouse to do things in a low regulatory environment that it couldn't do in the United States.
And it will go over there and learn how to do things quickly and efficiently.
Maybe they make a mistake, but it'll be in Ukraine, not here.
But when they're done, it might be the thing that unlocks the nuclear program for the rest of the world.
So in other words, if there had not been a war in Ukraine, there wouldn't be a low regulatory emergency place where you just really, really had to try hard to build some nuclear fast.
Otherwise they won't have enough power.
That learning will probably be extended to the rest of the world.
It could be like one of the biggest, you know, potentially, it might be one of the biggest benefits to humankind.
If it's the thing that flips us into, you know, going crazy into nuclear power.
So I don't want to be the infinite optimist, but every once in a while you get something good out of all the bad.
Comic Dave Smith, I was talking to Nicole Shanahan, RFK Jr.' 's VP Choice, and they were talking about the food supply being terrible, and it turns out that Dave Smith's wife and I have something in common, which is she's super allergic to wheat, but only in the United States, right?
In Europe, their wheat is fine because they don't have all the additives.
But she was tested, and just to confirm this, because this is the hardest thing, let me tell you what the problem is.
The people who really look into it know that our wheat, there's something wrong with it.
When I stopped wheat, I mean, I just felt so much better.
And it continues to this day.
You know, my weight drifted down, my total body inflammation went away.
And apparently, according to Dave Smith, she was tested for gluten sensitivity and she doesn't have it.
So here's the reason our wheat is fucked up.
It's because we are.
I've told you before that whenever I talk about the idea of building really efficient houses that are much better, everybody yells, tiny houses, tiny houses, I wouldn't live in a tiny house.
And I say, no, no, that's a different topic.
Tiny houses, you know, may be good for some people, but that's not what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about like a regular house, but just building it much more economically.
And then the audience would say, but I don't want to live in a tiny house.
And I'd say, no, no, no, no, it's not a tiny house, regular size.
And then the comments will be, you're not going to get me in a tiny house eating insects.
I'll go, no.
Why can't, why can't you hear that?
And this is a common problem in the world that if somebody gets a strong idea in their head and it's sort of adjacent to whatever you're talking about, The strong idea will always kill the real idea.
So let me show you this with wheat.
I have a wheat allergy, but it's not from gluten.
Not from gluten.
100% not gluten.
One thing I can tell you for sure, it's not a gluten problem, not a gluten problem, but wheat.
And now in the comments, well, somebody will say, hey, I have a gluten problem too.
How are you not hearing that?
Not a gluten problem.
Yeah, a lot of people have that gluten problem.
Are you a celiac?
What's happening?
Why can't I communicate this?
Not a gluten problem.
There's something about the weed itself.
And people just can't hear it.
It's unhearable.
That's been my experience.
And the reason I say that it must be unhearable is because if people heard it, they would immediately change their behavior.
It's that they can't hear it.
I don't know why.
I mean, I do know why.
It's because there's this big heat sink, which is gluten allergy, and everything you say just gets absorbed into that heat sink, and then you're left with no message.
If you understood that your fucking weed is killing you and destroying the country, you'd stop eating it!
You would!
But you don't!
Do you know why you keep eating the wheat and keep getting fat and keep getting inflamed and keep getting sick?
Do you know why?
Because you think it's a gluten problem and you don't have a gluten problem.
Yeah, it's a psychology problem disguised as a food problem.
That's what it is.
Well, meanwhile, we've got battling data.
All the data in the election year is fake, so I'll give you a couple more fake datas.
The May unemployment rate rose to 4%, but a record number of jobs were added.
So are we unhappy that unemployment went up, or are we happy that a whole bunch of jobs were created and filled?
If you happen to be in a context of massive illegal immigration, I'm not so sure you'd be happy about all those extra jobs getting filled if it meant that your overall unemployment was going up.
So the meta comment on all this is that don't believe any of it.
However, I would note that if inflation does stay above four, it removes Biden's one and only thing he had.
Right?
The only thing that he had was that number didn't look so high, and then he could gaslight people and say, you know those groceries you can't afford?
It's all in your head.
Yeah.
No, because inflation is not bad.
Yeah, it's not bad.
So you think you can't afford gas?
Probably just your imagination.
Because the entire Democrat program is based on gaslighting.
They don't tell you a true fucking thing and never have at least in 10 years.
They literally don't tell you anything true.
It's the weirdest thing that they have like half the country and half the country hasn't realized that they never tell the truth.
Now, I'm not saying, oh, the other side always lies and my side tells the truth.
Nothing like that.
I mean, both sides, both sides do some lying.
The difference is the Democrats lie about everything.
Everything.
And it's intentional.
That's really different.
Then when Republicans get something wrong, usually they thought it was true.
It's a completely different situation.
All right, my theme today is Design is Destiny.
And I'll give you some examples of that.
I conclude that whenever you have a DEI program, it would work fine unless you did the following.
Censor people's free speech.
If you combine them, that's a design.
Would you agree?
It's a system design.
So DEI is a system, and free speech is a system.
If you had free speech, like the real kind, you could say anything you wanted, and you also had DEI, it might actually work.
Because people would say, all right, I'm going to focus on improving my diversity.
And then the employees would say, oh, it looks like all you're doing is you're just discriminating against white people.
Well, at the moment, you would get fired for that.
Right?
You'd have to be a whistleblower and lose your career just because you're saying something that's obvious and true.
So, I think you could make a lot of bad ideas work as long as people could talk honestly about them the entire time.
As in, oh, you went too far, maybe pull that back.
Oh, this didn't work as well as we wanted, maybe we tweak it and try it again.
Free speech is the only way you fix anything.
But, if you take DEI and then you put on top of it massive censorship, which is what we have, Corporate, government, social media, so there's just some things you can't say.
That guarantees a destruction of the country.
Let me say that again.
DEI by itself could have been a positive thing.
The concept's fine.
Get more, you know, have the, you want the world to look like, you know, the world.
So it's not about a concept level.
It's just when you combine it with massive censorship to try to force it down people's throats, then it destroys your entire country.
And that's what we're observing.
We're observing design being destiny.
If you told me, Scott, we're going to put in this DEI program, but at the same time, we're going to get rid of your free speech.
Could I have predicted that we would be in this situation today?
Yes.
Yes.
The design would get you there and you could see it on paper.
Now, what happened when Elon Musk bought Twitter?
He returned free speech.
Not everywhere, but enough.
That was a design fix.
Remember, Elon Musk is a product design person.
He sees the systems.
He's not looking at the little dot.
He's looking at the whole system.
So he looked at America and he said, That machine is broken.
And the key part that's broken in the machine is the free speech.
So for a gazillion dollars, I can fix the key lever, which is the main thing that can fix the other stuff.
And then he did.
I think that Elon Musk buying Twitter will someday be seen by historians as something similar to the American Revolution.
All right, here's another one.
Could you predict that DEI would have this effect?
things happen to America if we survive.
I mean, we still have to do a lot of work.
All right, here's another one.
Could you predict that DEI would have this effect?
The Miss Maryland contest was won by a trans competitor.
So Miss Maryland was won by someone who was born a different gender than they present themselves at the moment.
Now, was that predictable?
Was it predictable that trans would enter women's sports and we wouldn't be able to talk about it and that Miss Maryland would be a trans opponent?
Of course it was.
It was all predictable, but only if you don't have free speech.
Do you think that the born female competitors in the Miss Maryland contest, do you think they're delighted with that outcome?
No, they're not.
But they stood on stage and they clapped and congratulated.
And in public, they will say, oh, yeah, that's a great thing.
But they don't have free speech on that topic anyway.
They know they'd get hammered.
So they just clapped.
By the way, there's a fake version of this news.
If you saw a video of what looked like Miss Alabama winning and being 400 pounds.
Did anybody see that video?
It was going around yesterday.
It appeared to be a Miss Alabama contest that appeared to be won by a 400-pound woman.
But it was fake.
That was not the Miss Alabama contest.
It was in fact a body positivity pageant.
So within the context of body positivity, the 400-pound winner made sense.
But I think libs of TikTok fell for that one.
So libs of TikTok is usually pretty accurate.
So everybody gets one wrong.
I think they got one wrong.
All right.
John Fetterman says to CNN that he is no longer identifying as a progressive because the situation has changed, not him.
How much do I love seeing a prominent Democrat say, I can't even associate with the things you call yourself in my own party.
I can't even associate with that part of the party.
Good.
Fetterman, more than any other politician, doesn't give a fuck what you think.
You know, the thing you like the least about Fetterman in the early days was that he refused to dress in the way that you wanted him to.
Like, dammit, put on some proper clothes.
Young man, I want to see you in some proper pants.
Put on a nice shirt and have it ironed.
Young man, you're representing your state and our government.
Dammit, we can't put up with your slovenly look.
Now you know what I think?
Now I think it was just one more sign that he doesn't give a fuck what you think.
He's going to do what he thinks is right.
I love it.
I'm not going to agree with all his policies or anything like that.
But sure, I'll take a few more Fettermans.
If I had to disagree with somebody, I'd rather disagree with him.
Because when we discuss it, if we were to, I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't be lies and gaslighting.
He might have a different opinion about how things should go, but I'll bet it's actually based on something in the real world.
You know, not magic stuff like Trump's gonna steal your democracy.
I'll bet he never said that.
Maybe, but I doubt it.
So, speaking of design is destiny, this also came from comic Dave Smith and Nicole Shanahan.
They're talking about, you've seen this before, but doctors were incentivized to give the shot during the pandemic.
Everybody knows that, right?
The hospitals, the doctors, they got way more money if they vaccinated.
One doctor said that she would have made 1.5 million dollars if she had just vaccinated all her patients, which she wasn't doing.
Do you know how much doctors make?
Doctors are not well paid anymore.
I don't know if you paid attention to that, but it used to be when I was a kid, doctor was, you know, kind of your path to the good life.
Now it's just a job.
It's just a job.
If you just give somebody who has just a job, a $1.5 million incentive to do something, That might include not using their own personal judgment with a specific patient so much as Making 1.5 million dollars.
You should expect that the design of that system would cause the doctors to ignore their own views and opinions and Go with the program that pays them because they can always say well, you know, this is what the authority said I just went with the I went with the science so they'd be safe So yes, if you design a system that pays people to do the wrong thing, there's a pretty good chance they'll do the wrong thing.
Well, of course, since there is AI, we're all going to be talking about AI adult entertainment.
And, you know, there's more conversation about that online today.
But I would say design is destiny.
And here's what you need to know.
The AI is getting better and better.
At interacting in a way that humans consider sexual.
Would you agree?
And it doesn't look like there's really a cap on that yet.
They're not really close to where they will be.
For example, the deepfake woman that it creates might not move as smoothly and look as realistic as a real person, but we're maybe only, you know, we could be one month away from that being solved forever.
So it'll look and act like a real person.
What happens then?
Because they don't really do that now.
I mean, you know you're talking to a robot, but very soon that distinction will be so small or completely disappear that you won't.
I mean, you will now because you bought it or you signed up for the app, but it'll be just like a person.
Now, that's one of the things that I think AI can do.
That's in the 30% that I think it will do.
Because humans are not so logical or consistent.
They do lie.
They hallucinate.
So if your AI friend or your AI porn is doing any of that, you'll be like, well, OK, that's a person.
People do that.
But here's what I say.
Humans are getting less attractive every year, in part because they eat wheat in America.
And the AI is getting better every year.
You tell me what that design creates.
The AI is getting better at competing with humans.
Humans are getting worse at a very fast rate, meaning less attractive, less interested in getting along, less interested in a relationship, less interested in providing value to each other, such as children.
The system itself is working against you, because if you get married, you're probably going to get divorced, lose half your shit.
Humans and the laws about how humans get together and get married and stuff are getting worse and worse and worse.
AI is getting better and better and better.
There has to be a crossover.
The design basically guarantees it.
I don't know.
I think we're going to get to a point where just some people are breeding, and there's some, like, longhouse where all the kids are raised or something, and 80% of the world will just be using AI.
Because I think, you know, maybe human interaction is going to go to a low that you didn't imagine was possible.
All right.
Here's what I say about politics, and see if you would agree with that.
The phase where we want something to happen as an improvement or Trump to be president, Biden not to be president, etc.
The wanting phase is over.
Does it feel like that to you yet?
Have you seen the change in people's behavior and the way they talk after the verdict about Trump, after the felony convictions?
I think we have now entered the decision phase.
And I always talk about this.
When you simply want something, whether it's in your life or in the world, you might not do anything about it.
It's just something you want.
But once you decide you're going to have that thing, then there's nothing that stops you if it's physically possible.
In other words, if you have to go to school for four years, you've decided.
You do it.
You have to be an unpaid intern and eat dog food for two years.
You do it.
Because you've decided.
It's not what you want.
You decide it.
And that's very predictive.
When people decide, you can now predict how they'll act.
When people just want something, well, you can also predict.
They won't do much about it.
And I believe that, you know, especially with the Bannon going to jail on July 1st, allegedly, Peter Navarro in jail, all the J6ers in jail, I think Republicans have decided I think they've decided.
Now that doesn't mean, you know, bad things won't happen and the other team has a, they have a vote too.
But I feel like there's a whole different level of trying.
We'll get to that.
But here's the main thing I want to say.
And you should all hear this.
We don't have to live this way.
That's it.
We don't have to live this way.
Can you feel that?
When I say that, you can feel it, can't you?
That doesn't come to you like an intellectual, academic thought.
You don't have to live this way.
You are being oppressed by very bad forces, and you don't have to live this way.
But you do have to decide you don't want to live this way.
If you simply want to not live this way, well, you're fucked.
Because wanting isn't going to help.
You got to decide.
You got to decide that whatever it takes.
Whatever it takes.
Whatever it takes.
I don't recommend violence, by the way.
It's hard to pick one of the 25 hoaxes on the Democrats that's the funniest, but I'm going to go with this as the funniest of all the hoaxes.
Biden is brilliant whenever you're not watching.
Now, can you top that?
Are any of their hoaxes funnier than Biden is brilliant when nobody's watching?
Or no, only when Democrats are watching.
When Democrats are watching him behind closed doors, he's brilliant.
When Republicans watch him, he's not brilliant.
And he's not brilliant in public.
But when Democrats watch them independently, wow, the lights are all on and lots of people are home.
That's the funniest of all the hoaxes.
And I feel like that's the, you know, the straw breaking the camel back.
Imagine you're a Democrat, and you've been selling all this bullshit for so long, and you get to this one, and you're still trying to sell that.
Oh, he's fine.
Behind closed doors.
When you can't see it.
Well, watching DEI destroy the entire Democratic Party, exactly as the design would predict, what would you predict?
If you add an imbalance between the demand for diverse, high-quality candidates for jobs, you had a high demand for it because everybody wants a little more diversity, but you had a low supply because of systemic racism being so terrible in grade school that basically, you know, one whole part of the public is quite a bit held back, thanks to our teachers' unions, primarily.
So there is a systemic problem.
That creates a supply and demand imbalance when you reach an adulthood.
And what would you predict if the companies had to reach their diversity, or even the government, they had to achieve diversity, but you knew that systemic racism had limited the supply of good diverse candidates, but they're going to hit the target anyway.
What could you reliably predict that design would get you?
Reliably, you could predict it would get you massive incompetence.
Because if you hire a white person who doesn't get the job done, you replace them.
If you hire a black woman to get the job done, and it doesn't work out, you keep them.
That's our current design.
Because losing the diverse candidate is just a big problem.
So you don't want to do that.
So over time, owing nothing to do with anybody's genes and nothing to do with anybody's culture, the DEI system design should destroy the government.
And we're watching it happen in real time.
Do you think that the Biden administration or the Biden campaign is maybe the worst you've ever seen?
Of course it is.
It's the worst you've ever seen.
Now, some of that's the candidate himself, right?
But a lot of it is that whoever is supporting him is not doing the right thing.
And the right thing should be talking him out of running.
That would be the right thing.
But people want their jobs, you know, maybe they got a good position in the Biden situation.
So the reason that I can call this out, the DEI bias design, not because of anybody's genes or culture, should destroy the government.
And then we watch it happen in real time.
And do you know what else?
The rest of you fuckers can't say it out loud yet.
The only reason I can even say this is that I'm totally cancelled.
The rest of you, you guys keep your mouths shut, don't you?
Yeah, you couldn't say that at work, could you?
And by the way, there's nothing wrong with what I just said.
Because again, it's not about any people or persons or colours or genders.
That's completely left out.
It's a system design.
It's guaranteed to destroy the country.
Guaranteed.
You know, unless something happened to reverse that government situation.
Like Trump, for example.
So Trump was at a fundraiser in San Francisco, of all places.
He was at David Sachs' house.
I guess he raised $12 million.
It was a big hit.
Every ticket was sold.
And they were expensive tickets.
Um, and, uh, but it's San Francisco, so, yeah, you know what happened as soon as they found out that Trump was in that building, right?
So, the protesters showed up in San Francisco, liberal San Francisco, and just like you expected... Actually, it didn't go the way you expected.
According to David Sachs, Quote, it's safe to say this wasn't supposed to happen.
About five times more pro-Trump demonstrators turned out than anti-Trump protesters.
If this is the enthusiasm gap in liberal San Francisco, what does that imply for the rest of the country?
Yes, what does that imply?
Five times more Trump supporters in San Francisco.
Now that is a strong statement, isn't it?
Meanwhile on Morning Joe, they're still selling the story that Trump's gonna get his retribution.
He's gonna get his retribution.
Then Donnie Deutsch, who might be one of the dumbest people on TV, not because he has low IQ, because he probably has a good IQ, he seems probably smart, but he has such TDS that he comes off as an idiot.
Here's one.
Donnie Deutsch said, quote, I don't see revenge as an issue that any voter has ever said is a key issue for them.
And the more Trump talks about that, the better it is for Biden.
God, I love that they're giving bad advice to Biden.
Do you know who thinks revenge is a worthy topic and they're very happy if Trump gets it?
70 million Americans.
70 million Americans, Donnie Deutsch, want revenge.
Oh, they want revenge.
And if you ask them privately, they might even use those words, because I've certainly heard it privately.
I know you have.
Now, I recommend against falling into the revenge narrative.
I realize it's unavoidable, but I say, what are you worried about, Donnie Deutsch?
We have this justice system, which I've been told always gets it right, and nobody's going to be prosecuted unless they've committed a crime.
So, what's wrong with nobody's above the law?
How about that?
Nobody's above the law.
Now, suppose you had a system designed In which one side was using lawfare and claiming that nobody's above the law.
And then they lose the election.
Game out what do you think the system design gets you.
One side blatantly locks up the other people in mass numbers, if you count the January 6th people, plus your Peter Navarro's, your Bannon's, your Trump's, et cetera, et cetera.
And the fake electors, so to speak.
So you've got all that going on.
And they're doing it under the cover of nobody's above the law.
And then let's say that party loses power.
What would you expect to happen?
Well, if your universe is working properly, there will be an aggressive response.
And every single person prosecuted, when anybody complains about it, what do you think the Republicans are going to say?
I think they're going to say nobody's above the law.
Couldn't you predict that from the system design?
So, let me explain this to Donnie Deutsch.
Donnie Deutsch, if you don't want 70 million people to want revenge, don't fuck them.
How about, don't fuck them?
How about that?
Yeah, stop fucking people, and maybe they won't want revenge.
But I'm completely in favor of revenge.
Because it's called for.
Mutually Assured Destruction has been implemented.
Let me be clear about this.
It's not a maybe.
This is Mutually Assured Destruction.
It is in full tilt, and when the Republicans get power, I don't know what's going to happen.
But it's certainly looking like Mutually Assured Destruction.
And by the way, we need it.
This needs to get terrible.
Because you need people in the future to say, we can't open that door again.
Democrats opened the door.
You put our fucking president in jail.
Or you're trying to.
No.
No, you know what we're going to do?
We're going to move out of the wanting phase.
Now we're in the deciding phase.
Decided.
The decision's been made.
You're going to pay for this.
There's no way around it.
You better get used to it.
You're going to pay.
Just the bad guys, not anybody who broke no laws.
This is obviously RICO.
It's obviously the whole system's corrupt.
And as other smart people have noted, the vice presidential choice is going to be inconsequential for Trump compared to an attorney general choice.
You know who I want for attorney general?
Steve Bannon.
Not because he has any legal expertise.
He'll just do what needs to be done.
And he'll do it with malice.
But only within the legal system.
I mean, I don't want anybody to... Nobody should depart the legal system.
And no violence, please.
But yeah.
Some shit's gonna happen.
So some high-level Democrats do have to be in jail.
For what they've done to the country, right in front of us, clearly illegal.
I think some judges might need to go to jail.
Yeah, I think it's going to go pretty deep.
But again, it's only because nobody's above the law.
There's nothing wrong with that.
All right.
What do you, what do you expect?
I guess the Hunter Biden trial is winding down.
Gonna have their final witness today.
Some people are saying it's going to be a hung jury.
Others are saying the case is the most proven case of all proven cases.
So the people who know this kind of work are saying, I've never even seen a case that's this clear.
He's the most guilty of any guilty person you've ever seen.
He's in a very friendly venue in Delaware.
And some people say it's only going to take one person to hang the jury.
And I actually have some sympathy for the defense argument.
I think the defense argument is going to be that he wasn't addicted at the time he filled out the form.
Now I'm going to extend that argument a little bit.
It goes like this.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, How long does somebody need to be not doing drugs before the law says it's okay for them to apply?
And the jury will think, I don't know.
And then I would say, is one year enough?
And the jury would think, well, probably.
Yeah.
If you, if you were clean for a year.
Yeah.
That sounds like you could reasonably say you're not, you're not on drugs.
What if it was a month?
Then the jury would think, well, still good.
I mean, a month is pretty solid effort.
So yeah, maybe.
And then I say, what about a week?
Suppose you had definitely been off for a week.
Then people would start saying, oh, I don't know.
What about one day?
Two days?
Then the jury would say, I don't know.
And then here's where I win.
Ladies and gentlemen, We don't have a standard.
We have an opinion.
If you had a standard, as in you must be clean for 30 days or you must be clean for a year, and my client did not meet that standard, I would agree with you.
He should be guilty.
But we have a situation here in which there is no standard.
You and the jury don't even have the same opinions of what would be long enough.
I say that if the time he filled out that document He, in his mind, believed that he was not going to do drugs?
That's good enough.
Because the law doesn't specify that somebody else gets to tell you if you're an addict.
It's self-reported.
As long as it's basically self-reported, you're going to need a cleaner standard, or you're going to let him self-report.
Because the design of the system is such that there's no way to know exactly If the person was lying or just optimistic.
I think it might be a hung jury for cause.
In other words, I'm not happy with the law.
Let me say that directly.
Actually, if he got acquitted, if he got acquitted and the reason was that the law wasn't specific enough, I'd be okay with that.
I'd be completely okay with that.
Would you?
Do you know why?
Nobody's above the law, but the law doesn't get to fuck you just because it can.
That's why you have a jury.
You have a jury to make sure that the law doesn't walk over the rights of the person.
So if they say, you know what, that's a pretty fuzzy standard.
We're going to send somebody to jail for 25 years when you can't even be sure that in their own mind that they did anything wrong, which is the mind that matters.
Yeah, I don't know.
You know, I know you want revenge, but I'd rather have truth.
And I don't want to see anything outside the standard of the law.
And I got to say, if the jury hangs, I'm not going to complain a lot.
All right.
Will he get a pardon?
Joe Biden says no pardon, which is the correct political thing to say, because he can always change his mind and nobody would be surprised.
So the correct answer is, oh no, let the legal system do what it knows.
I'm not going to intervene.
And then if it needs to, you can just do it anyway.
So politically, that's the right answer.
There is a report in the Gateway Pundit that Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs took a bunch of money from some state contractor, $400,000.
Maybe it went toward her Or inauguration, something like that.
So we don't know the details there, but among the allegations is that there was this place called this Sunshine Residential Homes in Arizona, and they applied for a rate increase, which I guess you have to get the government's approval for that, and they were declined.
And after being declined, Uh, they, uh, made a big donation to a dark money fund, uh, for Hobbes campaign.
And then later, soon after they were approved and no other, no other company in their industry was approved for a raise.
Only the one that got turned down, gave a bunch of money to our campaign and suddenly all good.
Now, is any of that illegal?
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't even know if any of that's illegal.
Our system is so sketchy, it might be legal.
Yeah, because if you can't connect the two things, I think it's legal.
You could just say, oh yeah, she did turn us down, but I still think she's better than the alternative, so we gave some money to her.
I don't know.
Probably there's no way to convict that.
I can't imagine there would be.
It just looks suspicious.
All right, Merrick Garland.
Told reporters that he doesn't need to respond to a congressional subpoena, that he doesn't think is legitimate.
So he's currently throwing Steve Bannon behind bars for doing that.
And yeah.
So we do have two-tiered justice.
I'm sure he would say, but I'm not Steve Bannon.
I'm a special case.
But you could, you could argue that point.
All right, so Trump said on Thursday, he said that the January 6th committee should be maybe indicted?
that the January 6th Committee should be maybe indicted?
To which I say, yes.
Yes, I think the January 6th Committee is the most obvious corrupt situation.
I don't know if they broke a crime per se, but what they did was a crime to the country, at least conceptually, if it's not technically illegal.
You know, they put people in jail and destroyed notes.
I would think that there's at least some kind of like fake imprisonment or something you could do.
There must be some crime there.
A complete tragedy.
He's talking about Navarro and Bannon.
And, you know, I heard some people say that they were worried that this is a play to shut Bannon up during the key run-up to the election.
And if he went to jail, I suppose in a surfacy way it would.
But I don't think the left has quite understood how energy monsters work.
Steve Bannon is not going to get weaker because he went to jail on principle for a few months.
That's not what happens.
No.
People are going to vote for Trump because he went to jail.
He's just going to get stronger.
Same as Trump.
So you can try to shut him up, but Steve Bannon doesn't just want Trump to win.
He decided.
If you want to know what a decision looks like, look at Steve Bannon.
He's not telling you his preferences.
He's telling you what he's doing.
Yeah, I'm going to jail, if I have to.
Yeah, but we're going to get it done, even if I have to go to jail.
So that's the difference between wanting and deciding.
If he wanted, he would just say some safe things like everybody does, but he decided.
So he's going right into the most dangerous territory of conversation and politics, and might get him a jail sentence that he actually serves.
All right, Thomas Massey had an idea for saving Bannon, and maybe this would apply to the J6ers and Navarro, I'm not sure.
But the idea would be to rescind the congressional subpoena.
And I thought, wait a minute.
So, Bannon's going to jail because he didn't obey a subpoena from Congress, but now the Republicans have the majority in the House.
So, can't the Republicans just rescind the subpoena, and then there's no crime?
Now, I don't know, but it feels like that's a thing.
And then Ivan Raiklin, who some of you know, he's a, I think he was a Green Beret, he was also a lawyer, he's been getting a lot of attention, and he chimed in and he said, just have Representative Loudermilk have his subcommittee strike from the record the entire J6 report and all underlying lying criminal referrals of the J6 committee and have Speaker Johnson affirm it.
This will resolve Bannon-Navarro Trump's situation, not to mention all other January 6th defendants, and he says Johnson can pull all of these criminal referrals back.
He is the same officeholder that submitted them.
Is that true?
Is he the same officeholder that submitted them?
Anyway, I'm not going to jump on this and say that this would work, but why hasn't it been tried?
What the hell is wrong with the Republicans?
And why is it that Thomas Massie is the only one who ever has an idea?
Is there nobody in the whole frickin' Congress who ever comes up with an idea?
Now, I don't know if this will work, but it's an idea, and I would sure as hell push it as hard as I could just to find out if it worked, because this would be justice.
That's what justice would look like, and it would all be within the mechanisms of the existing government.
No insurrection needed.
Just use your own rules.
Now, I saw somebody say, if this is going to work, why haven't you done it already?
And I totally get that.
But don't be that person.
Right?
If somebody figures out what to do, finally, just encourage it.
Like we don't need to re-litigate the past, right?
I would be very happy if they just figured out they could do it and then did it, and I'm not gonna... I will still have some concern about why it wasn't done sooner.
It's a legitimate concern, but maybe just leave it out of the argument.
Maybe just take the win if you can get the win, and not attack your own team.
All right.
So, there's a Yale professor, Jed Rubenfeld, who has this idea for thwarting Judge Merchant, trying to put Trump in jail.
So, apparently, Trump is not officially a felon.
This is what I learned.
Until the judge enters the judgment into the record, he's technically not a felon.
So, not really convicted until the paperwork's done.
Apparently, you could get a federal judge, potentially, to put a stay on the judge entering the verdict.
And the argument would be, if I understand this right, from the federal government's perspective, because the federal government gets to pursue its own interests, right?
Separate from the state.
That's how the system works.
That the federal government could say that so close to the election, this would be election interference.
And they could say, we're not going to change the decision.
It's just, you can't do it now.
Can't do it now.
And if it gets delayed until Trump gets in office, then Trump can change things once he's in office.
So would that work?
And again, if that would work, was there only one One lawyer in the universe who figured that out?
Is he the only person who figured out you could get a federal judge to put a stay on it because it's election interference, which it obviously is?
I don't know, maybe it's just too easy.
It seems too, just too easy.
There must be something wrong with it.
All right, here's something that DC Drano points out on X.
You said Tucker and Bongino got booted from Fox, Alex Jones owns a billion dollars, Infowars raided, Rudy Giuliani owns a hundred million.
Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro are being imprisoned.
Trump has 34 felonies.
He banned on all social media.
CFO of Apec Times was just indicted.
James O'Keefe has gone from Project Veritas.
OAN was banned from all major satellite networks.
Parler was booted off their AWS cloud server.
I think they're back, by the way.
Elon is being sued and investigated by the feds for everything.
And almost every alternate elector has been indicted in the blue states.
So when you see it all, it's time to get out of the wanting phase and make sure you're in the deciding phase, because we don't have to live like this.
And Steve Loves Ammo, which is a great account.
If you ever want to increase the security at your house, start a social media account and give yourself the name Steve Loves Ammo.
Except put in your own name.
You know whose house I would never mess with?
Steve's.
Do you know why?
He loves ammo.
Say no more.
Say no more.
I'll be robbing your neighbor this time and maybe not the neighbor right next to you.
I might go a few blocks away.
I'll rob the neighbor who doesn't have enough ammo and doesn't even like it.
Anyway, Steve says, another reminder of how dangerous the United States of America is, and he mentions Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon and Mark Meadows arrested for contempt and Hunter Biden.
Oh, but then you look at the other side.
Hunter Biden defied a subpoena, not arrested.
Eric Holder defied a congressional subpoena, not arrested.
Lois Lerner, same thing, not arrested.
Hillary Clinton, not arrested.
We don't have to live like that.
We really don't.
But America First Legal, Steve Miller's brainchild there, here are the successes they've had in one week.
So they are now becoming the primary mechanism by which Republicans are fighting back against the lawfare and basically the excesses everywhere.
So in one week alone, They sued the DOJ to compel the immediate release of Matthew Colangelo's government records, showing whether he was basically coordinating and orchestrating with Alvin Bragg to get a political enemy.
That's exactly what I want to see.
Thank you, yes.
If we have some suspicion that Colangelo took a demotion just to get Trump, and it was all organized at the top, Yes, I'd like to see their communication, because it certainly looks guilty.
You know, they're innocent until proven guilty, but the indications are there's a crime.
So yes, I'd like to look at that.
They also launched three investigations into the Alvin Bragg for abusive prosecution of Trump.
And they want his communications with the White House.
They launched investigations into the improper involvement of the Biden DOJ and the Manhattans, blah blah, that's similar.
Filed a formal request for the State of New York Ethics Commission for the Unified Court System for the release of Judge Merchant's financial disclosures.
Now normally, I would say that's way over the line.
If a judge says something you don't like, you don't ask for their financial disclosures, even though apparently there's a legal process which you can.
But in the case where his daughter is benefiting financially, and he somehow magically got three Trump cases in a row, defying all statistical odds, yes, under those conditions, I want to see his financials.
Will there be anything bad there?
Probably not.
But it is a situation where you definitely want to look.
You definitely want to look.
And then they, this is my favorite, filed a EEOC complaint against Alvin Bragg's office for race and sex discrimination in hiring and recruitment.
And this is based on the fact that they're heavy into DEI.
So they basically say they're going to look at your race and your gender to decide if to hire you, which is very illegal.
And so America first.
Yeah, America first legals going after him.
Oh my God, I love that.
I feel like just because they're racking up some victories that you can feel some optimism.
It feels like mutually assured destruction is doing its thing, which it needs to.
I mean, sometimes you have to do demolition before you do building.
We might be in a demolition phase.
That doesn't mean it's bad.
All right.
So the Daily Beast wants you to know that Biden probably did not poop his pants at the Normandy thing.
And their post says, MAGA trolls reacted by accusing the president of pooping his pants.
Now, I don't know how many MAGA people really thought he pooped his pants.
But likewise, I don't know how many Democrats really thought the president suggested drinking bleach.
Or really praised any neo-Nazis at Charlottesville.
So, I am enjoying watching the return play.
Maybe if Democrats had not built an entire structure of hoaxes, which they call their party, maybe then the MAGA people would not be incentivized to give them what they give.
But this is just handing them back what they're giving.
And I don't mind this at all.
Yeah.
But is it real?
No.
But did we ever think it was real?
Probably not.
Does it make it less fun to say it?
No, it's fun to say.
So people are going to keep saying it.
It's like the drinking bleach.
Sometimes it's just fun to say.
All right, Biden doesn't have a lot of support from voters on China, according to a Rasmussen poll.
So 56% of Democrats think Biden is doing a good job.
Handling China.
So only a bit over half of Democrats think he's doing a good job.
So only 11% of Republicans believe that and 31% of the non-affiliated people.
So 76% of Republicans think Biden's doing a bad job on China.
76.
So 76% of Republicans think he's doing a bad job.
That would leave, let's see, 100 minus 76, carry the two, 24.
24% of Republicans think he's doing a, he's not doing a bad job on China.
Well, there's that pesky 25%.
Keeps popping up.
All right.
Oh, some fun stories to add.
So there's a New York Democrat who's running against Elise Stefanik, and she is saying that she wants to send MAGA supporters to a re-education camp.
Said that actually out loud in public.
Wants to send MAGA supporters to a re-education camp.
But she quickly points out, we should probably call it something else.
Can you believe that?
Yeah, but maybe we should call it something else because it doesn't sound good when we say it out loud.
Maybe if the thing you want to do sounds that bad when you say it out loud, maybe it's not the words you're using.
Maybe it's the thing you want to do.
Wow.
Here are some things that Trump—oh, so Trump's using this small candy persuasion.
I guess he's holding up the tiny Tic Tacs.
Compared to the old ones that were a bigger container with more tic-tacs.
So he's actually using Biden's only play against him.
Yeah, the candies are small, but that's Biden's fault.
So Biden is blaming the corporations for making the candies small, and Trump is going to blame Biden for making the candies small because of inflation.
Probably works.
It's very visual.
So, do you notice that when Biden talked about the candies, he didn't hold one up?
When Trump talked about the Tic Tacs, he held the small one and the big one up, so you can see them next to each other?
Visual persuasion.
Yeah, Trump gets that right every time.
He knows visual persuasion.
And Biden just sort of talks about it.
Oh, my candy's too small.
All right, so here are some things that Trump is planning to say in his upcoming speech, and it's pretty badass, so I'm just going to read it, if you don't mind.
He's going to say, reportedly, the Biden border invasion is also an all-out war on the working-class minorities of our country, and it is flat-out economic warfare on African Americans and Hispanic American families.
I think he can sell that, because that rings true to me.
The illegal immigration is hurting Black and Hispanic families more than anyone else.
In less than four years, Biden has imported millions of low-wage migrants and given them welfare, free health care, and work permits to undercut American wages.
Now, real incomes for African Americans are down by almost 6% under Cook and Joe.
I don't know if that data is correct.
Simultaneously, illegal immigration is causing rent and housing prices to skyrocket because we have 15 million migrants and no place to put them.
In everything he does, Biden puts illegal aliens first, he puts the cartels first, he puts the open borders lunatics first, while he betrays American citizens.
As your president, I will put African Americans first, Hispanic Americans first, and I will put all Americans first.
My loyalty is you, to you, the American people.
Nicely done.
Now, it's a little pandering.
But is it pandering if it's real?
In other words, you know, the immigrants are hurting one part of the population probably more than another.
I think it's real.
And I think if it's real, you can say it.
And I think this is exactly the language that puts him over the top.
He's basically, you know, he's saying, I'm on your side.
Have you ever heard me... Well, I don't want to bring myself into it.
But here's what you should never do.
Here's a mistake.
I'm not prejudiced against whatever group.
I'm not prejudiced.
Nope.
Sounds like you are.
How about this?
I will put African Americans first, Hispanic Americans first, and I'll put all Americans first.
Now what do you think?
That's a direct statement that I'm going to look out for your interests.
Right?
It's direct.
That is way better than just saying, oh, you know, I'll get rid of discrimination or something.
All right.
So I think his messaging is the best it's ever been.
And I'll reiterate that whoever is advising Trump, you know, he still gets the credit because he has to say yes or no to any advice.
But whoever is advising him, I think is killing it right now.
Yashir Ali reports about, this is a funny story, so George Clooney's wife, Amal, she works for the ICC, International Criminal Court, And they were behind wanting to prosecute Netanyahu and the defense minister over in Israel.
And so Biden was not liking that.
So he was going to sanction the members of the ICC.
So in other words, Biden was going to sanction George Clooney's wife.
Does it get any better than that?
George Clooney had to call the White House and beg for them to change their policy to stop this, so that they wouldn't sanction his wife.
He's like the biggest Democrat supporter, and he's finding out that it's just, they're going to sanction his wife.
They immediately changed their policy.
Because they couldn't lose Clooney.
They're like, we can't lose Clooney.
So they changed their policy with one phone call.
God.
All right.
Jordan Peterson says this about TDS.
Now, I didn't think there was anything new you could say about TDS that would be useful, but he did.
So I'm going to tell you what he said.
He said that TDS is a psychological condition induced by the requirements to make Trump a worse villain than ever, the worst imaginable villains.
But there's a reason for that.
And Jordan Peterson says that the reason for demonizing Trump so much is that it gives cover to everything they do that's evil.
In other words, they could say, yeah, maybe we're not perfect, but look how bad Trump is.
Aren't you glad you don't have him as president?
So I never really thought about it that way.
But they don't really have to sell anything that they have as long as they can sell Trump as worse.
It's sort of the same technique that Trump used against Hillary.
People said, there's no way he can beat Hillary.
And I said, wait till you find out what people think of Hillary when he's done with her.
And that's pretty much how it went.
So yeah, I think there's something to that.
As long as they're demonizing Trump, they can sell themselves and their excesses as, oh, it's not as bad as that.
So, Alan Dershowitz was on the Piers Morgan Show, and he was saying of the Trump verdict, it's the worst verdict in his 60 years of being in exactly this kind of law in this space.
He said on a scale of 1 to 10, he would rate it a negative 20.
Now, what's funny is that the panel had David Pakman and a woman I didn't recognize, but clearly she was a Democrat.
And by the way, I have apologies to David Pakman and Dan Abrams, because the other day I was mocking Dan Abrams, but I mistakenly called him David Pakman.
So this is the real David Pakman, I think.
I only saw his photo.
I didn't see the name on it.
But if you watch it, you can see it floating around on social media.
But you have to watch the smug idiot face.
The MSNB smug idiot face.
It needs to be one word.
Smug idiot.
Because they have a smile that says, hmm, I know what's going on here, in the context of actually not knowing what's going on here.
And when I see it, it's this whole uncanny valley thing, where it doesn't look like a human to me.
I'm going, what is wrong with you?
What is wrong with your face?
Why are you doing that?
And so as Dershowitz, who some would say might be the premier dependable voice on this topic, He's just ripping apart the thing that they all thought was, you know, nobody's above the law.
And watching their faces as they had to sit there and listen to it, they decided that their best play was to smile like it's crazy.
So they're doing the... The smug idiot smile is just driving me crazy.
I don't know...
You definitely see Republicans smile sometimes when people are saying dumb stuff, but it's not like the smug idiot.
It's a whole different look.
And I think what it is, is that the smug idiot face you can't produce unless you realize you've been living in an illusion.
There's something about it.
That when you realize that you're the one in the illusion, you smile because there's a disconnect between your reality and what you thought it was, which makes people laugh and smile.
So I think the smug idiot is smug, not knowing what's true, but also finding out about it in real time and you don't know how to deal with it, like your brain doesn't know how to deal with finding out how wrong you are on live TV.
That's what I think.
Well, meanwhile, over in Gaza, some say that there are only 7,000 Hamas fighters left.
I saw Joel Pollack was reporting on this, and Breitbart.
And what we know is that the leader of Hamas They said they're going to reject any ceasefire that would require them to disarm.
So, roughly half of them have been killed, if the estimates are true, but I wouldn't trust any estimates in the war zone.
So, they say they have 7,000 armed Hamas fighters, and they're not going to disarm, no matter what else is offered.
To which I say, well, that's just a kill me request.
So no, now I think Israel has the total green light to kill 100% of the Hamas fighters.
So I think they should stop when they have 100% everyone.
And I wouldn't let up until then.
Because if killing half of them didn't make a difference, it's not about changing their minds.
Killing the other half is the only way you're going to get to something good.
So if you stop now, it'd be a complete waste of time.
Everybody who died would be a waste of wasted life.
They'd all be wasted.
If you, if you do a ceasefire, they have to kill every one of them.
Everyone, like literally a hundred percent.
And anything short of that would look like stupid to me, but I think they have total, uh, ethical and moral cover for that.
Except for George Clooney's wife, the wild card.
Alright ladies and gentlemen, I can't agree with this pro-Israel stuff Tim says.
Was that pro-Israel?
Did what I say sound pro-Israel?
It shouldn't have, because I'm not pro-Israel.
I'm just calling balls and strikes and observing.
I'm observing that no matter who it is, if the other side says, we want to kill you and we want to keep our guns, That only leaves you one obvious choice.
You have to kill them all.
Now, if that sounded like, oh, you're being such an Israel supporter.
No, I'm not.
I don't support Israel because the ADL doesn't support me.
And you don't need to tell me that they don't work for Israel.
I don't give a fuck.
That's not my problem.
But don't ask me to be on the side of, you know, a significant portion of them not on my side.
So if they're on my side, I'll be on their side.
That's my deal.
I love Jews.
Did you see Mike Cernovich's post today?
She goes, I think it was just, I like Jews.
It was just three words.
He is the best poster.
Everything he says is just so provocative, no matter what the topic is.
So I will I will boost that message.
I love Jews.
I've had some of the best relationships in my life with Jewish Americans, etc., and even Jewish Israeli citizens.
I've had great relationships.
Work relationships, private, romantic, all great.
But Israel itself?
No, they're on their own.
They're on their own.
Because I can only back the people who back me.
So as a government, they're on their own.
But as the people, the people have been largely great to me, so of course I'll be great back.
Except for the ADL.
The ADL is a garbage organization at this point.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, that's all I have for you today.
It's Friday.
I talked too long already.
I'm going to say goodbye to everybody on X, uh, yeah, and Rumble and YouTube.
I'll see you again here in the morning for more fun.
