Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 25, 2024 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams

01:29:13

Episode 2607 CWSA 09/24/24

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good morning, everybody, and welcome.
	To the highlight of human civilization, today with the whiteboard, if you'd like to take your experience up to levels that nobody can understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank of gels, a stand, a canteen, a jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
	Fill it with your favorite liquid.
	I like coffee.
	And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine at the end of the day, that thing that makes Everything better.
	It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
	Oh that was really good.
	That was a good sip right there.
	Well, good news.
	Good news.
	There's a revolutionary anti-aging therapy.
	According to SciTech Daily, researchers at Duke, In the U.S.
	medical school, they figured out that interleukin-11 is very influential in your aging.
	So if they can disarm this interleukin-11, which they think they can do, you can live up to 25% longer.
	Now, good luck feeding you, but there'll be lots of you.
	Imagine if everybody just started living 25% longer.
	I feel like that would destroy civilization.
	Am I wrong about that?
	Be careful what you ask for.
	Yeah, how would you feed them all?
	Anyway, X is going to make a change that if you block somebody, as I love to do, you'll still be able to see their content, but they won't be able to interact with you, which works for me.
	Now, I don't know if you have this experience on X, those of you who use it.
	But there are lots of things that people repost, and there'll be some message where I can't read it.
	And it doesn't say I'm blocked.
	It says something like the user limits who can see their posts or something like that.
	I don't even know what causes that.
	But some large percentage of all the things that people send to me and say, hey, look at this, I can't look at.
	Um, large percentage, maybe 5%, but that's a lot.
	So maybe that'll go away.
	Um, you know, the story about, uh, the Biden administration had that $42 billion set aside to build internet access to all the rural people and time went by and nobody got hooked up.
	And you said to yourself, why, why did nobody get hooked up?
	And I always thought to myself that the government funding of anything like this, whether it's a local city or national or state issue, I think that 100% of these are just corrupt.
	And here's what I assume.
	I assume that there are too many ways for a person in government to make money for themselves, even if it's just donations for the next race, by deciding who gets what contracts.
	Because if you've got billions of dollars to allocate, don't you just find the friendliest person you can and say, I got a deal for you.
	We're going to give you a few billion dollars to do this work.
	You'll be rich beyond any imagination, but I am going to come and ask for some favors in return.
	Perhaps you will make large donations to my campaign in the future.
	Perhaps.
	Perhaps somebody that's in my family who's starting a company might need an investment and that has nothing to do with me.
	I mean, your investment arm might do whatever it wants to do and might actually like that business that my cousin is working on.
	So there are a million ways to do corrupt things with gigantic amounts of money that the government has to give to private citizens for various services.
	I think our elected officials should not be in that business at all.
	I think you have to remove the elected officials from allocating large amounts of money.
	I'm okay with them making laws.
	You can still make laws, because we can watch that happen.
	If we don't like it, we'll vote against you.
	If you're moving gigantic amounts of money around in sketchy ways where we can't really know if you really picked somebody who was your brother-in-law, you can't always know.
	None of that works.
	If you were to write down that system on paper and say, all right, I'm going to design the system.
	Here's the system.
	We're going to have billions of dollars sloshing around with nobody watching carefully.
	And we'll have our elected officials decide who wins the bids.
	Who in the world, who in the world would have said that was a good idea?
	The only thing I can think of for how we got to this place is that when the founders who built the system, there just wasn't that much money floating around.
	So it wasn't like there were billions of dollars floating around and it'd be easy to, you know, to, to make sure that you got a taste of it.
	So maybe they just didn't think about it and, and you could tell where the money was being spent.
	Just by looking.
	Maybe it was just a simpler time.
	But I think we somehow have to get out of our system entirely that the people in charge get to make the decisions.
	So what are some of the problems?
	Well, some of the problems is they would spend too much and there would be corruption.
	Those are the obvious problems.
	You want to hear another problem?
	Well, According to several people, including Commissioner Brendan Carr, he said this was the worst abuse of agency process I have seen in my 12 years of working at the FCC.
	So I think the short version of this is that the reason things were held up so long to get that funding out and have it spent so people could get internet in rural areas, Is that they were kind of waiting for their preferred Democrat vendor to be ready to take the deal.
	So I don't know the full details, but it looks like it's exactly what you thought it was.
	It wasn't incompetence.
	It was waiting till they could give the money to their preferred person.
	So that's what it looks like.
	So imagine the choices that the government had.
	They could spend far less money and be ready immediately just by using Elon Musk's product.
	But that would be giving these spare billions of dollars that the government has sitting around to the person who might spend them against them.
	Because Elon Musk might be, you know, if he has extra money, maybe some of that's funding Republican related stuff.
	So at all expense, no matter what happened to the citizens who needed that internet, The Democrats were still willing to completely embarrass themselves and do this criminality, I call it criminal, right in front of the whole country, as long as it was good for them.
	And then they did.
	And then people complained.
	And then what did the public say?
	Did the public rise up?
	And say, well, I'm trying to feed my family today, but now you've brought up this issue about the FCC's inefficient and possible corrupt allocation of bids.
	No, you don't care about that.
	You'd have to be in the top 1% of 1% of people who follow the news, even to care about that story.
	Cause you know, I got 50 stories that are, you know, at least as interesting.
	So we don't have a system.
	That even when this is uncovered and made public, and it's in the news, nothing can really be done about it.
	Because there's no correcting system.
	Normally the correcting system would be you publish it, you expose it, and then somebody's going to have to make a correction.
	Nothing like that's happening.
	There's a story, there's an exposure, seems pretty clear and obvious, and you know, I don't even think there's any doubt about what happened.
	I'm not even sure anybody's arguing the narrative here.
	And it's just complicated, and it's one of many things.
	So we're just going to ignore it.
	So that's our system.
	Anyway, so I would say that one thing we need more than just about anything is destroying all of our cities, is that the decision of who gets the contracts Cannot be the elected officials.
	They just can't have, they can't touch it.
	They need to be a full, you know, what we used to call a Chinese wall.
	I hope that's referring to the gray wall of China and not some racist trope that I don't know I just used.
	Is it racist to say a Chinese wall?
	I don't know.
	You can't say the virus came from a Chinese lab.
	Anyway, So here's another story about our system.
	So according to phys.org, there are some robots.
	They got some robots that are measuring the temperature of the deep ocean.
	And it's the Deep Argo Floats.
	And they went in and they collected a bunch of data about the ocean.
	And then they compared it to other temperature stuff that they did without these robots.
	So surface temperatures and other measures, and they decided that the ocean is getting warmer.
	What do you think I'm going to say about this story?
	Do you know me well enough by now?
	Let me just say the most confident thing I could ever say.
	We can't measure the temperature of the ocean.
	You all know that, right?
	So here's a story telling us that they've got this robot, it's measuring the temperature of the ocean.
	Well, I'm sure it got data, and I don't even doubt the accuracy of its measurement devices.
	But how much of the ocean do you think they measured?
	I mean, just ask yourself, how much did they measure?
	And I don't know if you know this, this may come as a shock to you, But the ocean doesn't have walls.
	I mean, you know, out in the middle of the ocean, there are no walls.
	It turns out that the warmth where you measured it, the moment you're done measuring it, it can kind of move over somewhere else, where maybe it wasn't so warm before.
	Now, if you know anything about the real world and you've lived in it for five minutes, No, you can't measure accurately enough the temperature of the ocean.
	I'm sorry, that's not a doable thing that a human being can do with current technology.
	Could we do it someday?
	One could imagine that.
	One could imagine a million drones that periodically drop temperature measurements into a million different places chosen randomly, and they do it on a regular basis, and then we track it for 30 years.
	That might be pretty good.
	I don't know, but that might be pretty good.
	Do you think we're doing that?
	Do you think we're putting a million drones down every other day in random places?
	No.
	No, we're not.
	We're dropping a robot, too, in the ocean and then trying to tell people who were probably in charge of funding it that it was all very successful and they should be very happy they spent their money measuring the temperature of the ocean.
	Do you remember when you used to believe stuff like that?
	When somebody would tell you, yeah, we measure the ocean.
	And you thought, huh, good job.
	I wouldn't know how to do it myself, but I'm glad you're out there just killing it and measuring the temperature of the ocean.
	No, don't believe that.
	Meanwhile, RFK Jr.
	is saying that this is a great, just a great way to put something.
	I tell you, RFK Jr.
	is, I don't know how much comes all from him and how much he has help with speech writing and messaging, but damn, he's good.
	So good.
	Listen to this one.
	Quote, for half the price of Ozempic, we could purchase organic food for every American, three meals a day and gym memberships for every obese American.
	Now there are probably a million different ways to say the message he was saying.
	But somehow he picked the best one.
	This is really good, to immediately just put that Ozempic thing, because it's in the news, right?
	So if you pick anything that's already on people's minds, you're automatically good messaging.
	Because you're not making them think of something, you're finding something they're already thinking about.
	That's the key to good messaging and persuasion.
	Find something they're already thinking about, and then you've got something to tie your messaging to.
	So that's what he did.
	And now you might say, is that true?
	You could purchase organic food three meals a day for every American for half the price of Ozempic?
	I don't know.
	Who knows?
	I don't even know if you could calculate such a thing.
	But doesn't it make you want to think about it a little while?
	Makes you pause?
	You go, really?
	How much do we spend on Ozempic?
	And so half of that?
	Would that really buy all that food?
	How much is a gym membership anyway?
	So, it doesn't matter that it's exactly, you know, those numbers match exactly.
	What does matter, of course, is, is it directionally correct?
	Yes, it is.
	Yes, it would be great if we didn't have to stick a drug in us to be healthy, if we just ate better and exercised.
	So, and he points out that even the Danish government doesn't recommend Ozempic.
	It recommends a change in diet and exercise.
	It's a Danish company, by the way.
	So it's a Danish company that makes Ozempic, but the country it comes from doesn't recommend it.
	But we're not Danish, and it's not a Danish company, and we're just sucking that stuff in like crazy.
	Ann Kennedy says, why are members of Congress doing the bidding of the Danish company instead of standing up for farmers and children?
	Very good question.
	Very good question.
	Related to this is, could vertical farming help us?
	Vertical farming is indoor farming, where instead of just having a row of stuff on the ground, you build a wall, and the full wall is full of plants, and then you can use the space more efficiently.
	But there are some thoughts, according to this guy Mac's publication, that if you kept fiddling with the light And the, the water and the nutrients and the spacing and all that stuff.
	If you just kept filling with it, you would just keep getting better at it until this was a real big part of our food system.
	Now remember, if you do a vertical farm, an indoor farm, it can be placed close to the people who consume it.
	So you take away all the storage and all the shipment costs and energy costs are high.
	So, and then apparently you can do things with.
	Regulating the light.
	So you save a bunch of money on light by not using all the light right away and stuff like that.
	So here's what I think.
	I think you could easily imagine that an industry will pop up where first of all, all the, uh, the vertical farming components are just, um, easy to buy and there's competition.
	So you need some kind of racks or shelving to get the height.
	Somebody probably already.
	It's just making those and you just say, OK, I'll buy these and put them in my farm.
	Likewise, there have been a number of developments with light, you know, indoor artificial light to get just the right frequency and stuff like that.
	And I've also seen stories about people using music and vibrations to to make their plants ten times bigger.
	So I feel like This is a little bit like indoor farming is sort of the Model T of automobiles, where if you looked at the Model T, you'd say to yourself, I'm not so sure everybody's going to want one of these.
	You know, if it rains, you're going to get wet.
	Well, what good is an automobile if it, if you get wet when it rains, nobody's going to buy these Model T's, but of course they got better every year and they continue to get better.
	So I think vertical farming is the future.
	Let's talk about Diddy.
	You all know the Diddy story, but what is interesting to me is how many probably innocent people are getting dragged into this story.
	Now I'm going to mention some names of celebrities, but I want to be very careful that my context is telling you that they're innocent.
	Right?
	They're going to be dragged into this Diddy stuff, but they're innocent until they're proven guilty.
	And as far as I know, they're not proven guilty of anything.
	So I'm going to call them all innocent.
	And you better bring me some good information to change my mind.
	But it seems like when you have a story like this, where there's sort of a, let's call it a black box of badness, where you don't know exactly what happened behind closed doors, you can kind of throw everybody into it.
	So now we have, let's see, Mayor Adams of New York City.
	So one of the rumors today is that he knew too much or he has some connection with the Diddy stuff or blackmail or something.
	There's no evidence that.
	None.
	It's just that he's a public figure.
	He's having some legal issues.
	It's around the same time.
	Then there were, there's a whole bunch of music executives who suddenly announced their resignation right after the Diddy thing broke.
	So people are saying, well, that's a lot of coincidental You know, people leaving the business just at the time.
	Could it be related or is it just because it's the end of the year and that's when people like to, uh, retire anyway?
	I don't know, but innocent until proven guilty.
	Poor Justin Bieber is, um, he would be a victim if anything, but we don't know what did or did not happen.
	I worry the most about him because the circumstantial evidence looks pretty damning.
	I think we have to wait to hear from him.
	He may now have the freedom to actually say what happened, whereas obviously he didn't have the freedom before.
	So we might find out a lot from Justin.
	And I hope he was not as victimized as people are speculating.
	Then there was this star, Aaron Carter.
	I hope I have the right name.
	He was a young, sort of a Bieber kind of a young fellow who was also part of that.
	Diddy world and he allegedly died young and some people are saying well was it did he really die or was he murdered?
	I'm not making any assumptions here.
	Again I'm just telling you that people are being dragged into the story who some number of them probably had nothing to do with anything.
	There's a whole bunch of Ashton Kutcher Stories.
	Apparently I didn't know this, but there's a, a well-known story where Ashton Kutcher earlier in his career was going on a date with somebody he had not yet met in person, I think.
	And he went to pick her up and she didn't answer the door.
	Uh, and later it was found that she had been stabbed to death 47 times.
	So she was inside.
	She was just dead by the time he got to his date and he'd been talking to her, you know, during the night.
	Now, I have no reason to believe he was in any way involved with any bad behavior.
	However, how many of you have had the experience of becoming a TV and movie star, but also showed up at somebody's house when they were slain?
	That's just a weird coincidence, isn't it?
	Like, how many stories that are different from every story anybody else would tell does Ashton Kutcher have?
	And then he becomes a successful investor, you know, separately.
	Interesting.
	Anyway, Usher, of course, he was one of the ones who stayed at Diddy's house.
	Now we're seeing old videos of him talking about it in generic terms, but now it doesn't look so generic.
	And you think, oh my God, they were trying to tell us.
	But again, I'm not going to assume that anybody did anything or had anything done to them.
	We don't know yet.
	I'm not going to name who even mentioned this, but today Monica Lewinsky was thrown into the mix.
	Now this is the one I believe the least, but the suggestion is that during the time, if you know the Epstein If you know that Epstein was a blackmailer and you know that Monica, somebody said she's Jewish, which shouldn't mean anything.
	I think that's confirmed because she dated Jake Tapper and they met on a JDate or Jewish website dating site.
	So that doesn't mean she's working for Israel and it doesn't mean she's, you know, she was co-opted by Epstein or any of that.
	It's just that she gets dragged into the story.
	Because she's a public figure and we don't know everything that happened in that situation.
	So I would say the odds of her being a Israeli spy, low.
	I'm not ready to be interested in that story.
	But my story is about people getting dragged into it.
	So she got dragged into it a little bit today.
	LeBron James, I guess he was pretty tight with Diddy, so lots of rumors about LeBron.
	Again, I'm not aware of anything he did illegal, or even knew about, so we don't know.
	And then all of this brought Kanye back in the news, because now the things that Kanye said that sounded crazy, when you listen to them again through the lens of knowing what actually happened, It's a little less crazy.
	I'm not ready to say that everything Kanye said is true and he had his issues with the Jewish people he's working with.
	I'm not going to endorse it or say anything about that.
	That's his business.
	But everybody's getting dragged in.
	Makes you wonder.
	And then 50 Cent, Yeah, he seems to be the most innocent, because from early on he was saying things, showing that he's not part of that.
	But he also said that he was on, I saw the talk show, I don't know how long ago, it looked reasonably recent.
	They said he's celibate, by choice, because it just basically causes problems when you're not.
	Do you believe that?
	Do you believe that 50 Cent, who could probably have as much sex as he wanted every day, all day long, decided not to have any?
	I don't know.
	It could be that he's pranking.
	He could be pranking.
	But it might be true.
	It might be true.
	Anyway, Trump went to a grocery store, and I think he bought some groceries for somebody.
	It was mentioned that I had suggested he go to a grocery store and bag groceries.
	I wish he had bagged groceries, because the visual of him chatting with a real person while they're both standing there and he's deciding what goes in the bottom of the bag and how many bags you need, to me that would just be magic.
	So it was a good play, going to where there are real people and where the story naturally is about inflation because he's in the grocery store.
	Same thing with pumping gas.
	You know, there are a couple of states where you can pump gas.
	I would still love to see somebody drive up to the pump in one of those states, I think New Jersey and Washington or something.
	I can't remember which states.
	And just have Trump walk out and give you gas.
	And then chat with you about the price of gas.
	I would love that.
	It would just be so natural.
	Because every time, I don't know if you've noticed this, but 100% of the time that Trump Talks in public, the anti-Trump press will find something to take out of context and some reason to not like it.
	But every time Trump talks to citizens, it's a home run.
	And, you know, I'm pro this because I was lucky enough, I've told you too many times, that I spent some time with him at the White House in 2018 when he was just, I think he was just shoring up support among the people that he knew supported him.
	And spending time with him is the easiest, most fun thing you'll ever do in your life.
	To me, it was a highlight of really my whole life.
	He is so good, so good on the individual charisma, human interaction level, that the more he does of that, it's just magic.
	So this was a good play.
	All right, let's talk about propaganda, which you call news.
	So Anderson Cooper had James Carville on.
	And listen to some of the things that Cooper says when you think that he's having somebody on to get some news from the person he's talking to.
	But you find out that the person he's talking to is irrelevant because he's making the news by his statements.
	In other words, he's using the interview just to spread propaganda.
	This is my interpretation.
	So here's something that Cooper said to Carville on the air.
	Quote, when you look at the last couple of months, you have Donald Trump talking about Haitians eating cats and dogs.
	His candidate in North Carolina talking about himself as a black Nazi on a porn site.
	He brought 9-11 conspiracy theorists to a 9-11 memorial ceremony, and then he says to Carville, why do you think it's this close?
	Now, that sounds a little like payback, because this is what I've been saying.
	So almost every day, I tell you something that's so ridiculously absurd coming out of the Harris campaign, and then I always end it with, and the polls are a tie.
	Because to me, it's hilarious.
	That you could have somebody who's afraid to appear in public, who's running for president, who has no accomplishments whatsoever, is part of the administration that everybody thinks failed, and that is close.
	And we know exactly what Trump did in the first term, and if you were to compare that to what has happened recently, I don't think it's close.
	One was anti-war, one was pro-war.
	I mean, to me it doesn't look close.
	Can you tell that the way Cooper phrased the question, that it was never about the question.
	It was about him saying that Trump is so bad that why doesn't the public see it yet when we, the news, keep telling them, here, I'm the news.
	I'm telling you.
	I'm telling you he's bad.
	Why don't you vote differently?
	Yeah.
	That was no news value.
	No news value.
	Nor could there have possibly been any news value.
	There wasn't even any potential for news value.
	It was pure propaganda, in which the person who was the guest, in this case Carville, was really a prop.
	He wasn't even part of the process.
	He was just a prop.
	Now, what is Carville most famous for?
	He's most famous for helping Clinton originally get elected, and for using the phrase, it's the economy's stupid.
	So he was the smart one who said, people care about buying groceries.
	If you keep it to that, you're going to win.
	And then Clinton did.
	Do you hear Carville say that anymore?
	Do you hear Carville say it's the economy, stupid?
	Do you think it stopped being about the economy when the economy is actually more important to people now than maybe just about any time except the Great Depression?
	No, Carville can't even say the thing that made him famous.
	Just think about that.
	When they bring on the worse-than-Watergate guys, I always joke about that, they make sure that the worse-than-Watergate guys say something was worse than Watergate.
	But when Trump said he wants to eat a cat, was that worse than Watergate?
	Oh, that's worse than Watergate.
	So much worse than Watergate.
	But you bring on Carville, who is the famous it's-the-economy-stupid, But he can't say that.
	Do you know why?
	Do you know why Carville can't say, it's the economy, stupid?
	Because it's the economy, stupid.
	He can't say it because it's true.
	Just hold that in your mind.
	He can't say it because it's true.
	And Trump dominates in the public's mind about who would do a better job in the economy.
	So the moment you put Carville on the air, and then Carville says what made him famous, which was always true, and remains maybe even more true today.
	Nope, can't say it.
	Because it's true.
	So then here's the second Anderson Cooper propaganda thing.
	Um, and what you should watch for is how the question is the only thing with substance, and then the guess that he has on adds absolutely nothing.
	Right?
	Here's, so here's what happens.
	Um, so Cooper starts out with, uh, you stating what he would consider an obvious truth, I guess.
	So he stated it like, you know, everybody knows this.
	So here's the thing that everybody knows that propagandists Cooper told his dumb viewers.
	He said that obviously hand counting would have more errors.
	Does that track with what you know?
	That hand counting would have more errors than machine counting?
	The entire reason that, this was talking about Georgia, just changed the law so that in Georgia, the ballots will have to be hand counted.
	They're not gonna use machines for that.
	So, this of course, if it's true that Georgia was massively cheating, using the complexity of their various systems, then the hand counting would eliminate their ability to do that.
	Why would a news organization be opposed To somebody getting rid of all the complexity that lowered the credibility of the result and putting in the system that everybody who knows anything about elections thinks is the better system, the paper ballots.
	Especially when you have somebody watching you count them.
	Let me ask you this.
	If you've got a Democrat and a Republican watching every ballot get counted, which is how you should do it, how many mistakes are you going to make?
	Is the watcher going to go to the bathroom or something?
	I don't know.
	And then if you don't get the right answer, you can always just count it again.
	So you have a perfect audit because you just recount it.
	You can't do that with the current system.
	So first, Cooper says it's sort of obvious that hand counting is bad.
	That is the opposite from true.
	But he stated it like it doesn't even need to be discussed.
	It's just, you know, everybody could tell hand counting.
	I mean, really, how are you going to compare like a stupid human to a computer?
	Obviously, the computer is going to be better at math.
	I mean, seriously, right?
	No, the hand counting is by far the more reliable system.
	And that's why it's used.
	It's used specifically because it's more reliable.
	That's the only reason.
	Anyway, maybe because it's cheaper in some cases.
	So then the guest, who was there to add value, said stuff like, blah, blah, blah, they're trying to carry Trump's water, they're ankle biters, conspiracy theories.
	They're basically MAGA this.
	He didn't have anything on the topic.
	Nothing.
	He didn't say, well, the studies have shown that this is a bad idea.
	Nope.
	Well, here's the logical reason why this can't work.
	Nope.
	He simply insulted Republicans.
	He was a guest to talk about this technical issue of ballots versus, you know, machines.
	And all he had was some insults to Republicans.
	He didn't even, he didn't even try to offer a reason.
	Why anything was better or worse or preferred.
	And then, Cooper ends the segment by reminding the audience that we do know the 2020 election was fair, and everything was fine.
	Which is a lie, because we don't have a system that could be audited completely, and therefore there is no way to know it was fair.
	We can only know that nobody proved in a court that it was unfair, in time.
	So, one lie, the hand counting is unreliable, and then he ends it with knowing that we know for sure that which cannot be known, which is the quality of the prior election.
	Can't be known.
	There's no way to know it.
	The only thing he could have done to make it dumber is to say, our elections are as accurate as our ability to use a robot to measure the temperature of the entire ocean.
	Should have thrown that in there.
	Well, what is the most ignored story of 2024 that also was the most important?
	Well, here's my nomination.
	Now, I think this is all true.
	So I have to say that first.
	It could be ignored because maybe I have something wrong.
	Maybe it's not true.
	But I think it's true.
	I saw the documents.
	I didn't see anybody just debunk them.
	So the claim is, and you see this in a bunch of places, but the claim is that we now know in writing, because we have the document, that Trump gave clear instructions to the Pentagon before the January 6 riots that he wanted to make sure that they were fully staffed and they had all the defensive
	Military assets they needed and they're all ready to go so that there was no violence that day Now that one fact if that's true Completely eliminates the entire Democrat Reason for running against Trump their main thing is that January 6 proved that he's an insurrectionist and now we have written proof that Written.
	We have the documents to show that he absolutely was trying to make sure that there was no violence.
	How exactly was he going to take over the country with troops that were not loyal to him?
	I mean, they were loyal to their senior officers, and they were there to protect the capital from his people.
	In what way do any of the narratives make sense about it was some kind of an insurrection?
	Now, I should be clear.
	My main point is this is the most ignored story of 2024.
	Two questions for you, my audience.
	Is this story true that we do know for sure that Trump was trying to organize and put effort into it, and that the help was denied by maybe Milley because of optics when it came down to it?
	If this is true, everything we've been told about January 6th is a lie, and also the January 6th Commission, if they were aware of this, and they left it out of the report, they all need to be in jail.
	Is that too far?
	The January 6th Commission, if they knew this fact, they knew that this document exists, and they didn't include it in the process, They need to be in jail.
	In jail.
	Like, seriously, they need to be in jail.
	Like, right away.
	Because that would be one of the biggest crimes I've ever seen in the history of the United States.
	Non-financial crime.
	It would be the biggest one, you know, not counting something that's violent and hurts people.
	Although, in a sense, this did hurt people.
	You could argue that not giving Trump that military assistance was the reason people died.
	So I guess you did kill people through this political process.
	So yes, to me that looks like election interference by the J6 committee, and I think they should be charged and jailed for that.
	And I really think they should be jailed for that.
	You know, I'm not a fan of using lawfare to go after your other side.
	So there's a lot of things that may or may not have been said or done by, let's say, Harris and Biden, that even if they look pretty illegal, I feel like we'd all be better off if maybe we just moved on and try to make sure it doesn't happen in the future, whatever it is.
	But the committee, the J6 committee, I don't give them the same, same kind of analysis.
	To me, they just look like criminals.
	That's what I see.
	I think they should be in jail.
	Anyway, Jim Acosta on CNN had to confess that the latest New York Times poll said that Kamala Harris' support among Latino voters in Arizona is down 11% since last month.
	But then he added this.
	This is Jim Acosta on CNN.
	Quote, if you believe this New York Times poll.
	So they get a poll they don't like, and then he adds, if you believe it.
	Wouldn't you have to add that for every poll?
	It seems like you should say that for every single poll, if you believe that.
	But only the ones they don't like, I guess.
	You probably heard that the attempted assassin, the second one on the golf course, that Ryan Ruth guy, or Ralph, he wrote a letter I don't know when he wrote this, maybe after he got jailed, admitting he failed in trying to kill Trump, but he offered a $150,000 reward to someone who could finish the job.
	And then our Department of Justice decided that you should see that letter.
	Why?
	Why?
	Did we really need to see that?
	Because you could argue that if you think we should see anything, Well, maybe we should see everything, like everything you know, like show us right away as soon as you know.
	But we know they don't do that.
	We know that when it's an ongoing investigation, that they hold the facts back as long as possible.
	But why would they publish this when it obviously seems like it creates danger for the president?
	Well, to me, it looks like the reason was to create danger for the president.
	I don't know that.
	I can't read any minds, but I don't really know the second possibility.
	Like, what would be the other reason for doing it?
	Wouldn't every one of you have considered this inappropriate to put in public?
	If you got the job tomorrow of being in charge of whether somebody saw that picture, saw that letter or not, wouldn't you suppress it?
	Because I don't know what news value it had other than Bringing up the idea that somebody could get a payday.
	Well, related to that, you probably heard that Matt Gaetz is talking about, apparently, we know there are five assassination teams in the United States.
	Now, where he gets that, I don't know, but I do think that he doesn't make it up.
	So, I think he's got some inside knowledge about that.
	And if there are five teams, and allegedly one of them is a Ukrainian-based team, shouldn't we stop all funding to Ukraine?
	If we have information that a Ukrainian assassination team is on American soil, or some of them, shouldn't we immediately stop funding?
	If we do it.
	If it came from the government.
	I can't imagine it wouldn't come from the government.
	And then we have the interesting connection that that Routh guy, the second attempted assassin, spent a bunch of time in Ukraine and was pro-Ukraine and was trying to do everything to help Ukraine and would imagine that taking out Trump would help Ukraine.
	So the question that Gates asks, which is a good question, is this guy couldn't possibly have been operating alone.
	And if we know there's a Ukrainian hit team, do we have everything we need to know?
	I mean, it's not confirmation, but if anyone was on a Ukrainian hit team, it would have been this guy.
	Because if you're a smart Ukrainian hit team, you don't use a Ukrainian to hit the president.
	If a Ukrainian pulled the trigger, things aren't going to go well for Ukraine.
	You all know that, right?
	And Ukraine would know that.
	So same with Iran.
	If there's an Iranian hit team, the last thing they want to do is be the Iranians that pull the trigger.
	That's not going to happen.
	So we've got two cases of people who got spun up rather quickly.
	To be attempted assassins, I wouldn't be surprised if Crooks was influenced by Iran and Routh was influenced by Ukraine.
	Or some factors within Ukraine.
	Not necessarily Zelensky, but can't rule it out.
	So, there's that.
	The National Pulse points out that the Washington Post is trying to Remind us that it would be totally normal on election day if Trump is way ahead when you go to sleep, but then all those mail-in ballots get counted, and then suddenly Biden comes from behind.
	So, just like last election, we're being told that the normal, most credible thing in the world is for a last-minute dump of Biden votes.
	That feels exactly like we're being set up for a steal.
	In fact, I don't even have a second way to think about it.
	Now, you can imagine that if it were all legitimate, they'd still need to say it to make sure that you didn't think it was illegitimate.
	But, man, we're at such a low trust point in civilization that when somebody does something that's so obviously could have that other meaning, you know, maybe not the positive meaning, I just, I'm so biased toward, well, that looks like you're setting us up for a steal.
	I don't know it, but every part of my body feels like that's what happened.
	So that's not ideal.
	Um, then in other news, uh, Trump joked that he has a personal, what he called a personality defect.
	He says, I don't like anybody that doesn't like me.
	Now, He is so good at making news with little things that don't matter.
	Like, almost any time he words things, it's just perfect writing.
	It's so hard to look away.
	Because, on one hand, he didn't say anything.
	Because you and I have the same feeling, right?
	How many of you love the people who think you're shit?
	Not most of us.
	Mostly, we like people who like us.
	I know I do.
	If somebody likes me, You'd have a hard time talking me out of liking you.
	That's for sure.
	But if you don't like me, you think I'm going to say, you know, this person doesn't like me, but I think they're awesome.
	There are some situations in which I do that.
	There are some cases where people hate me, but it's not returned because I think they hate me for reasons that, you know, they're just confused.
	If they actually knew real facts and still hated me, No, not my friend.
	But if they've been brainwashed by somebody, I take that into consideration.
	But anyway, I think he's just like the rest of us, but he says it in a more provocative way.
	Meanwhile, in Arizona, there was this Democrat Campaign office that somebody shot up.
	So just a few bullets.
	Nobody was there.
	And I think that whoever shot it could tell that nobody was there.
	Maybe it was a night or something, but isn't that convenient?
	That just when the conversation is, Hey, you Democrats keep saying things that get our president shot at, and they don't have a good answer for it because it doesn't seem equivalent in both directions.
	And then, oh, oh, a mysterious person shoots at a Democrat office in Arizona.
	Huh.
	Well, certainly we can add that to our narrative to say that the rhetoric coming from the right is so bad that there's some Right-wing lunatic, probably a white supremacist, who grabbed his gun, way too many guns, as you've been told by the Democrats, went down to that office and tried to kill some Democrats, and weren't they lucky that none of them were in the office at that time?
	Does this feel like a real story to you?
	Or does it sound like it's a little too on the nose?
	As in, it's the perfect story at the perfect time with no victims?
	That's a little convenient.
	It's a little bit too convenient.
	Now, I can't rule out the fact that there was just a crazy person with a gun who doesn't like Democrats, wasn't trying to hurt anybody, but was just being a dick and thought, I'm going to put a couple of bullets through their building just to show them I hate them.
	No, I can see that.
	So I'm not saying it's not, I'm not saying it's impossible.
	There's some Republican thought, ain't nobody's home, I'm going to put a couple of bullets in their house.
	I'm not in favor of that, in case you couldn't tell.
	But it's just a little too close.
	It's just a little too perfectly timed, perfectly the narrative that the Democrats want.
	Sorry, I'm not going to buy it.
	I'm not going to rule out the possibility.
	That was exactly what it looks like.
	Some Republican wanted to cause some trouble.
	But I'm not going to buy it.
	You're going to have to give me a lot more to make me believe this story.
	All right.
	Meanwhile, Putin is allegedly quoted as saying that he accused Western elites of cannibalism, claiming that they have grown used to filling their bellies with human flesh and their pockets with money.
	He further warned that this is a ball or cabal of vampires nearing its end.
	Hmm.
	Now, cannibalism.
	I think he's gone too far.
	Don't you?
	I mean, we don't actually have cannibalism.
	I mean, somebody blamed the Haitians, but there's no evidence of anything like that.
	But are we getting closer to it?
	Let's go to the white board and find out.
	Are there any forces in the United States that are moving us toward cannibalism?
	Let's see.
	The price of groceries is high, and people's ability to afford them is worse, at the same time that people in general are getting shittier, and at least the Democrats don't care how many Republicans die, and probably it's the same on the other side for some people.
	I think we're probably about here.
	We're halfway to cannibalism.
	So if the food continues to get more expensive and your fellow humans continue to suck even more than they do now, you won't mind eating a few to save money on groceries.
	So I'm going to debunk Putin.
	We do not have the elite eating people in this country, as far as I know.
	But we're heading that way.
	We're heading that way.
	Anyway, Congress has this bipartisan plan they're promoting to figure out how we could quickly adjust if there's a mass attack on Congress and a bunch of our leaders get killed at the same time.
	Huh.
	Huh.
	What would make that so important lately?
	Hasn't that been something that would have been important from the moment the atomic bomb was invented?
	Why is it suddenly in the news and suddenly has bipartisan support?
	Well, maybe it's just this is when enough people wanted to do it.
	So it could be just natural.
	Maybe this is the time.
	But I love this comment by Liz Crokin on X, who said on this story, if every member of Congress who is guilty of crimes related to pedophilia, sex trafficking, and or treason was charged, it would not only wipe out most of Congress, it would wipe out many of the government's employees.
	Maybe the mass casualty event they're preparing for is justice.
	Do you think it's possible That the Diddy situation goes so deep that it could take out like a quarter of Congress or something?
	I'm going to say no.
	I don't think that's a risk.
	But is there something that Congress knows that we don't?
	Could it be the swarms of drones are making it possible for somebody to take out big parts of Congress?
	Could there be some credible Incredible stories that maybe somebody has a weapon of mass destruction already in the country What are we not being told?
	All right There's a plan according to new scientists, there's a plan to refreeze some of the Arctic ice, you know the climate change People are concerned That the ice is melting and then the water will go up too high.
	And so they figured out a way, they're testing it.
	So they'll pump some seawater and I guess they'll pump it back onto the ice and it will kind of quickly freeze.
	And then they'll build up the ice so that the ice melting is compensated by the amount of water they're putting back into ice.
	Does that make sense?
	Scott is so naive.
	Let me just make a comment to the fucking assholes who are in the comments at the moment.
	You don't need to tell me that some of our leaders are puppets.
	If I don't mention it every fucking time I mention them, it doesn't mean I'm not aware that there are many forces behind the leaders who are the ones in charge.
	So you don't need to be a fucking asshole and just say, Scott is naive.
	He does not understand that there are puppets.
	No, I'm just not going to say it every fucking time I mentioned their name.
	Okay?
	If you're new to this, maybe this will be a surprise to you.
	But if you've been watching me for a while, there's nothing I say more often than we don't know who's making the decisions.
	So just stop being a dick for half a second.
	Try to add something to the world instead of being worthless like you are now.
	Thank you.
	At least come up with some real thing, just not some, he's naive, The one that bothers me the most is, Scott needs to learn from me and take a half-day class in everything about chemical something.
	No, I don't.
	No, I don't.
	You're just being a dick.
	So just stop being a dick.
	If there's something you think I should know, put it in the comments.
	If you know something, you could do that.
	If you don't fucking know anything, you can't put it in the comments and you can just say, Oh, Scott is so naive.
	He's so naive.
	He does not understand the things that I know because I know things.
	I read a story once.
	All right.
	So anyway, there's a plan to refreeze the ice.
	Meanwhile, according to real climate science, there's a, Record increase in ice in September.
	So one story is, we've got to figure out how to make more ice.
	The other story is, my god, there's a lot of ice being made in the first three weeks of September.
	Now, it has been going down, the amount of ice, so September is an outlier.
	So you can't make any judgments about, you know, one month.
	But Mexico, this will seem like an unrelated story, but watch me tie it all together.
	So Mexico is building a alternative to the Panama Canal.
	So it's going to be a land route across a thin part of Mexico.
	So you could unload your boats onto, I guess, trains, and then the trains would take it to the other side.
	And if they can get the economics right and build this thing, they can compete with the Panama Canal.
	Now you might say, but why not just use the Panama Canal?
	What's wrong with the Panama Canal?
	Well, there are a few problems with the Panama Canal at the moment.
	Number one, there are a lot of ships that want to go through.
	So, you know, there's just congestion.
	Number two, the Panama Canal is not as efficient as it used to be.
	Because the water levels are too low.
	Wait, what?
	So in the real world, the Panama Canal Which is all about the ocean.
	I don't think they're pumping in the water from a lake.
	Are they?
	When they do the canal, what do you call those things?
	The little things that fill up with water so you can raise the ship.
	I forget what the locks.
	That's seawater.
	Are you telling me that down in Mexico they're running out of sea?
	The water level is too low for the Panama Canal to work well?
	What happened to all that ice that melted in?
	One of the things I think about the ocean is that once the water gets in there, you can't really stop where it goes.
	Again, no walls in the ocean.
	Now, I do understand That there are other factors that can make the sea level change.
	For example, you know, the moon's position and, you know, if it's warmer in some places, just the warmth itself makes everything larger, including the water volume, I guess.
	So, you know, there are other factors besides just the melting ice.
	But it is kind of interesting that somebody is spending a lot of money to figure out how to create more ice at the same month that we have a record amount of ice, and Mexico is complaining about not enough ice has melted to give them water in the ocean, I guess.
	I added the ice part.
	They didn't complain about that.
	Anyway, Attorney Jeff Clark, who was one of President Trump's lawyers during the January 6th era, He's pointing out that there's no evidence that Kamala Harris ever tried a case, like in court.
	Now, she was the boss of some cases that happened, because it was her job to be the DA, but there's no evidence that she ever tried a case.
	Now, that doesn't mean she didn't.
	But Jeff Clark said it in public and invited people to prove him wrong, and nobody did.
	So there's actually no evidence she's ever prosecuted anyone in court herself.
	She was the boss when somebody did it.
	Andrew Cuomo, you remember him, once the governor of New York.
	But then disgraced by MeTooisms.
	And by the way, when I say disgraced, since I call myself disgraced, I'm just using it ironically.
	Anyway, he said in a speech recently that, quote, defund the police was the dumbest words ever uttered.
	He said that in Brooklyn.
	So it's good to know.
	The Kamala Harris's idea, one of the things she's famous for saying, is, according to one of the most prominent and smartest Republicans, the dumbest words ever uttered.
	So, I think we're seeing more people crossing over their party this time than ever before.
	Aren't we?
	Because the Democrats do, in fact, have a whole bunch of former Republicans who are endorsing Harris, mostly just anti-Trumpers.
	And now we see, I feel like there's a whole bunch of people who had at one point identified as a Democrat who switched over.
	I've never seen so much switching.
	A whole bunch of switching.
	What's that about?
	Do you think that's just the general people wising up that their own team is lying to them?
	So maybe the other team is lying less?
	I'm not sure what that's about.
	It probably has mostly to do with Trump being unusually provocative.
	Meanwhile, according to just the news, Newsom was bragging that some new crime stats came out.
	He said in a post, new violent crime dropped across America last year.
	And Newsom said, can't wait to see the Fox News coverage of this.
	Well, Maybe you shouldn't be so happy about how they're going to cover this.
	Because it turns out, according to just the news, that that was for the country, it wasn't for California.
	So, property crime did decline even in California, but violent crime is up 3.6% and the value of cars stolen in California was over $2 billion last year.
	.
	Do you know how much that is?
	Two billion dollars worth of automobiles were stolen in one year, in one state.
	Two billion dollars!
	So, you know, I had to like take measures to make sure my car didn't get stolen.
	Never had to do that before.
	Now it turns out, That a large portion of the increase in violent crimes was in one county.
	There was one county.
	What was it about this one county that was different?
	As a famous Soros-funded prosecutor, who is the subject of a recall movement, I don't know if it worked, so the Soros prosecutor comes in, and then my county, this is where I live, by the way, this is my county,
	So my county went from just about the safest place you could ever be, at least in my portion of it, because I think it includes Oakland, which is the least safe, but where I live, I chose it because it was the safest place I could go.
	And at the time I could go anywhere I wanted.
	Well, I mean, I had reasons to be unpleasant and, but, uh, So it turns out that Soros has destroyed my county with his funded prosecutor.
	And, uh, it's such a big effect that it's affecting the stats in California and might even affect the national race.
	Cause if people are saying that the Soros prosecutors and the Democrats are causing this, they're going to vote accordingly.
	So the, the Soros prosecutor in my county.
	Might be enough to get Trump elected, basically.
	Well, speaking of getting elected, Scott Pressler, who has been registering people to vote like crazy and focused on Pennsylvania, because everybody says it's the most important state, whoever wins that will probably win the election.
	Not for sure, but it seems to be a key state or the key state.
	And he says that as of yesterday, he flipped Luzerne County in Pennsylvania.
	By flipped, meaning that more registered voters are Republican than Democrat.
	Now, that's a really big deal.
	It could be that Scott Pressler is the one who decided who got elected.
	Isn't that weird?
	You know, you always hear this one person can't make a difference thing.
	Really?
	Scott Pressler may have just won the election for Trump and saved the world.
	He may have just done this by himself.
	I mean, he got lots of people to help, but they wouldn't have been helping if he had not been the organizer and the force of nature that he is.
	So, can one person change the world?
	He may have.
	He may have.
	Isn't that cool?
	And he did it all the right way.
	Followed the rules.
	Worked hard.
	You know, was a good person.
	Tried to make everything better.
	Now, we don't know how this is going to go yet.
	But yeah, one person can change the world.
	They can.
	Well, the Telegram app, as you know, their CEO was picked up in France and they were going to charge him with stuff if he didn't do what they wanted.
	But one of the things I guess they wanted was that now Telegram has agreed it's going to provide more data to governments, including the user's IP addresses and phone numbers.
	Only if there's a valid legal request.
	Which is, you know, pretty big category.
	And that's according to the CEO.
	Now, as Mike Benz likes to remind us, this is how the United States controls free speech.
	It gets international entities to do on our behalf what we can't do legally because we're supposed to be the First Amendment people.
	But they do need to, you know, our intelligence people apparently need to control all forms of communication.
	And this is part of it.
	So you should assume that all communication channels are accessed by the government completely at this point.
	I think that's the fair assumption.
	Meanwhile, the New York Post is reporting that You may have heard the story that Soros, George Soros, was trying to buy 200 radio stations that would go to 165 million Americans.
	Now, Soros owning a radio station and that much media just automatically raises every red flag in the world, because if you can control the media and communication, you kind of control the country.
	Now, you could argue But Rupert Murdoch, he's not an American, and he owns Fox News, and they're very influential, and that's a good point.
	Except, as far as I know, Rupert Murdoch wants what's good for America.
	I'm pretty sure that he never wakes up and says, you know, I want to destroy America today.
	It looks like the opposite, like he'd very much like America to do well, because it's, you know, one of the places he has a lot of business.
	And So, but you know, the, the, uh, the way the government works, it's going to take forever to approve a thing like this.
	I mean, it could take, take up to a year to get a thing like this approved.
	So I guess he's just going to have to wait a year while the government chugs through and tries to do his thing and all this money's on the line.
	But the poor bastard, he's just going to have to wait a year, just like everyone.
	Oh, update, uh, three Democrat commissioners.
	voted the two Republicans on the FCC and said he can speed that up and the foreign company ownership of the U.S. radio stations, that'll be fine. He'll just make an exception. Yeah, we don't normally allow that to be more than 25% stake, but that's fine. We'll not only approve it, which we wouldn't normally approve, but we'll rush it. We'll not only approve it,
	which is an exception because we're not supposed to approve that much foreign ownership of an American entity like that, a media entity.
	And so that just happened by a partisan vote of Democrats outvoting Republicans.
	Now, you know why there will be no outrage about this story?
	I'll be a broken record.
	Because it's complicated.
	You'd have to know the players and all the implications, and you'd have to know the history, and you'd have to know it's unusual, you'd have to know what the law is that they're taking the exception to, and then you'd have to compare it to the 50 other stories that are complicated in the news today.
	You don't have enough outrage for this one.
	This should be a source of great national outrage.
	It won't be, because first of all, the Democrats control the media, and second of all, We're just too busy.
	Just too many outrageous things.
	This won't even get your attention.
	So Soros is basically controlling the crime level in my town.
	And now he's going to take over the mines and directly brainwash American citizens.
	And we're just, hey, yeah, go ahead.
	We'll make an exception.
	No problem.
	Meanwhile, Trump says he plans on deporting over half a million migrants.
	I think he's talking about the Haitians specifically.
	Ship them back to Haiti as soon as he's in power.
	Now, I don't know if that's a good idea or a bad idea.
	Again, because it's complicated.
	If 80% of those Haitian migrants already have a job, Because there are companies that are just, you know, begging for low-end employees.
	I don't know if they should be top of the list, if they're already employed and the company needs them.
	But, you know, the 20% that don't have a job, there must be a reason for that.
	So maybe, maybe, maybe our priorities should be different.
	You know, if I were to predict what would really happen if Trump gets elected, I think he would first just, you know, close the asylum door.
	And the moment they stop coming in, your, your, uh, comfort with the world is going to completely change.
	So you think that there are two issues that are basically tightly linked.
	One is that too many people are coming in every day.
	And the other is that too many are already here.
	But if you solve the first one, about too many people coming in every day, your concern about the ones who have already come in, even 20 million of them, will instantly go to half.
	Because you're saying, okay, we'll chug through this.
	By the second generation, we'll probably be fine.
	So you would basically be able to live with it.
	Now, let's say that Trump decided not just closing the asylum door, but that he would, in fact, be very aggressive in deporting.
	I think he will be.
	But where do you start?
	If you put all of your energy into just deporting the people who are clearly criminals, it would take all of your resources.
	And that's where you should put them.
	Nobody would argue with putting all your resources, 100% of it, on just getting criminals first.
	And that could take a few years.
	If you put 100% of your resources into just the criminals, years.
	It would take years.
	And when you're done with that, Let's say it's three years from the beginning of the Trump presidency.
	Let's say he's got one year left and he doesn't want to go out as a monster.
	And the complaining about the number of immigrants who are already here, now that maybe they've been working for five years and have a job and they're paying taxes.
	How much are you really going to want them to be deported?
	Some of you are going to say yes on principle.
	I get it.
	Some of you are going to say they're criminals.
	They're all criminals, so I gotta send them back.
	But they're not all criminals, remember.
	The ones who come through the asylum gate, which is the big one, they are illegal.
	Because the asylum process processed them, and they're just waiting for the process to continue.
	Now, you might not like it, But most of the people coming in are coming in under the umbrella of U.S.
	law, as it's interpreted at the moment.
	So my prediction is that he will go hard at deportations, but it will take all of his energy to keep the borders sealed and send the criminals home.
	And by the time he's done with that, there just won't be much energy for the people who lived here for three years, really wanted a better life.
	Their kids are learning English.
	They have a job.
	Your level of being angry will just sort of get decreased.
	If they lied to get asylum, that is illegal.
	Yeah, but it's also a reasonable opinion.
	Let's say you came from any country that has a cartel.
	How hard would it be to say, you know, I'm afraid of living where the cartel is?
	Is that not good enough?
	Do you have to prove that you've got a specific threat?
	Here's the note where they said they'd kill me if I stay in Central America.
	Oh, asylum.
	How about, well, they haven't given me a direct threat, but where I live, it's just so violent that I can't even walk outside without risk of getting killed.
	So I want asylum.
	Do you get it?
	I think the answer is yes.
	You just have to say that in your opinion, your life is at risk.
	Nobody's going to, I don't believe anybody analyzes your life to find out what the degree of risk is.
	Now your real thinking might be economic security.
	But if you also have a legitimate dangerous situation, which would always be the case wherever the people want to leave to get economic opportunity, it's also going to be dangerous.
	I don't know.
	It would be hard to prove in a court of law that the only reason they came was for economics, when they're in the middle of a dangerous shithole.
	I think if I were them, I'd try.
	I would claim asylum.
	And I don't hate those people.
	I don't hate them at all.
	So, people who want a better life, I don't mind that we get a bunch of them.
	As long as we can control it.
	The question about immigration, as you all agree, is having too much of it and the wrong kind.
	You want to make immigration simple and make everybody happier?
	I thought of this one today.
	Now, this could never really happen in the real world, but it'd be awesome if it could.
	You bring in everybody who's got an IQ over 120, and that's it.
	We'll take all you have from every country.
	Whole country?
	No problem.
	You got an IQ of 120?
	You're in.
	We don't care where you came from.
	Do you know what a powerhouse the United States would be if we put an IQ limit on immigration and we made it higher than average?
	So imagine bringing in 10 million geniuses a year.
	I think we'd be okay.
	Yeah, we could bring in 10 million geniuses, like literally, you know, people who are in the 140s if we wanted.
	Maybe there's not enough of them.
	Scott is an open border proponent.
	Now, did anything I say sound like an open border proponent?
	There's just so many trolls today on the comments.
	No, I'm not an open border proponent.
	I might be worrying about it less than you, but I'm definitely not an open border proponent.
	Well, the U.S.
	is going to send, quote, additional troops to the Middle East, so things are looking dangerous over there.
	That's according to Pentagon Press Secretary General Patrick Ryder.
	His brother, Richard Ryder, could not be heard from.
	Some call him Dick Ryder.
	In light of the increased tensions, they're sending people there.
	Well, that sounds bad.
	And according to P.G.
	Keenan, Who's a commenter on X. Peachy says, uh, the federal government's highest priority is stopping Trump.
	So he can't stop the wars.
	Uh, I am a believer in that narrative.
	The narrative that the primary thing that the United States is doing behind the curtain is making sure that we have maximum wars, but I don't think that they only do wars.
	To sell war equipment.
	Let me give you, let's say, a reframe that might break some of your brains.
	And I haven't completely thought this through, so this is sort of new thinking.
	Would you agree with the following statement?
	If you're looking at, let's say, a business, a company, is it fair to say that companies are either growing, and that would be healthy, Or they're shrinking, which is unhealthy, and they're going to go out of business.
	But things almost never stay the same.
	Like the rarest situation for any big complicated thing, the rarest situation is always the same.
	So things are either improving or getting worse.
	Would you agree so far that the nature of things, countries, organizations, businesses, are either growing Or they're getting worse.
	Very few things, just same every day.
	So I would argue, and you're not going to like this at all, that the only reason the United States is successful, as successful as we are, is because of colonization.
	And that if you weren't colonizing, you couldn't grow.
	Because in the days of serious colonizing, it was about resources.
	Some of those resources, you know, were human trafficking, of course, so it's horrible.
	But colonization allows you to get more resources from other countries, and you might have to control those countries to get the resources.
	Now, you could say to me, but Scott, that is unethical and terrible.
	To which I say, yeah, I can see your point.
	It's unethical and terrible to the locals in many ways.
	But compare it to the alternative.
	The alternative is that China colonizes them, or Russia colonizes them.
	Somebody's going to colonize everybody who can be colonized.
	There's no world in which you leave them alone.
	And when there's an exception, it would be like Switzerland.
	Because what?
	We need their chocolate?
	Why does anybody need to colonize Switzerland?
	Because we're going to take their mountains and bring them back home?
	We're going to take their weather and bring it with us?
	There's nothing to colonize in Switzerland.
	They don't have a damn thing that we need.
	That's why they can be neutral.
	If they had anything we needed, we'd be starting a war with them to get their shit.
	Because, and here's the part that's going to be harder for you to accept, If the United States isn't growing, we're dead.
	You grow or you die.
	You don't have a steady state option, because even if you did stay steady state, other countries would grow faster, and then they would have economic and other control over you.
	So, colonizing and controlling other countries, which includes wars, and that's what Ukraine looks like, You know, the Middle East is its own complicated situation, but there's some of that.
	If we don't colonize like crazy, we're all dead.
	Because we'll just shrink and go out of business.
	So, you could say the United States is a terrible place because we create wars that didn't need to be created, and you'd be right.
	We're a terrible, terrible people who create wars that don't need to be created.
	But it works.
	And it has worked every year that the United States has been a country.
	And we've grown faster than other places that don't colonize.
	So we have this big old navy that allows us to project power pretty much everywhere.
	That's why I can have this live stream.
	Because we made so much money and inventions and technology was better and we've got great internet.
	And all the things that you want in life It's because people who are not you and not nearly as awesome as you because you are ethical and moral and other people are not But thank God those unethical immoral people are doing horrible things in other countries and to other people That if they didn't do the United States would just disappear so Here's my dilemma
	I can be opposed to war, but I can't be opposed to the concept upon which the war rides.
	Now, there could be wars that don't get you enough resources, and so therefore that's a dumb war that nobody is better off.
	But I don't think you can leave out of your thinking that whoever colonizes wins, and whoever doesn't colonize loses.
	And I mean loses, like you became poor or conquered slaves.
	I mean, losing is really losing.
	I mean, you lose everything.
	So do I care that the United States is super colonizing?
	Now you might say to me, Scott, if anything you're saying is true, why doesn't the government ever say it so that we'll be on their side when they do it?
	All the government has to do is say, look, Let me be honest with you.
	If we don't grow, we shrink and then we're all dead.
	The only way we can grow, the only way, is by having lots and lots of control over these other countries so that we can get their resources as part of our supply chain.
	So we don't want to have these wars, but it's the only way to be successful.
	Why don't they say that?
	They can't!
	Because they would never be able to sell that to the public.
	The public would say, Okay, but just don't do that.
	Because we don't want you to kill people in our name.
	I don't want anybody to kill anybody in my name.
	I don't want to pay taxes to somebody who's going to go kill a stranger in another country.
	On the other hand, that's a half pinion.
	A half pinion is you just take a part of the situation and then just pretend that's the whole situation.
	Part of the situation is I don't want anybody starting a war in my name with my money.
	They could come back and bite me.
	I don't like war.
	That's a half opinion.
	If we were not this way, we probably would already be out of business.
	So let me see if this analogy works.
	You've heard the stories about Steve Jobs being a genius at everything he accomplished.
	Have you also heard the stories that he was the biggest Asshole in the entire world like just a fucking dick You've heard that right?
	Do you think it would have happened if he was just a get-along guy?
	Do you think if he had not been?
	all those things that you wouldn't want to be and you wouldn't want to support and You wouldn't want to be near it if he hadn't been all of those things Do you think Apple would be Apple?
	I don't So I think you have to live in the real world a little bit And know that the hugely terrible things your government is doing is sometimes to benefit their buddies and their cohorts and the people who make the weapons.
	That's definitely a big part of it.
	But it's also probably absolutely critical for your survival.
	And they can't tell you that directly.
	So I'm going to tell you.
	It doesn't mean you shouldn't fight to stop wars.
	Because I think that's still the right impulse.
	There must be other ways we can do things.
	You know, it's just not always about bomb and stuff.
	But, you have to be honest, the colonizing is the only reason that DEI even exists.
	And I don't mean as a complaint about colonizing.
	It's meaning you wouldn't even have the luxury of complaining about bullshit like racial stuff.
	It's not bullshit, but you wouldn't even have the luxury of complaining about it, except that we're a hugely successful country.
	Because of colonizing.
	I hate to say that if you understand economics, everything looks different.
	But it is.
	You have to look at the whole picture.
	Now, I wouldn't want anybody that I like to imitate this argument, because it just makes you look like a jerk.
	And that's why people don't do it.
	But one of my minor values to the world is that I can look like a jerk, because I'm already, you know, cancelled, but doesn't make any difference to me.
	So there's your argument.
	That's all I have for today.
	I'm going to talk to the locals people privately, because they're special, and The rest of you, I will see you tomorrow, same time, same place.
	So thanks for joining on YouTube and RumbleNX.

▲