Find my Dilbert 2025 Calendar at: https://dilbert.com/
God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Proxima Centauri Signal, Toddler Food Quality, Integer Addition Algorithm, AI Power Reduction, Subjective Reality, Double-Slit Experiment, Manipulating Reality, Florida Insurance Cost, Anti-Elon California, CA Coastal Commission Bias, Rep. Jasmine Crockett, Russia Drone Production, Iran Drones, Survival Prep, US Electrical Grid, President Trump Security Need, Kamala Kollapse, American Debunk, USPS 2020 Election Allegations, Patrick Byrne, USPS 2024 Election, Kamala Loss Reasons List, Governor Spencer Cox, MSNBC Brennan Woodward, Israel Lebanon Conflict, 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
to his credit. These girls, they came, they shared their opinions, they shared their thoughts.
And it's like Isaac said, I do this for a living. I express my opinion for a living.
I think it was more casual for them. But I appreciate it coming on. I thought it was a good conversation. And it's good to flesh out the topics. I think they represent what everybody thinks about the issues. I think in that way, it was balanced. I represent kind of the opposite view.
Way. No.
Freaking.
Way. How is that possible?
And I'm really not trying to score slam dunks and say, oh, well, I got you in my trap. I'm trying to get people to think about a totally different way of thinking in the sense that you could see so much of the talk is, well, everyone should vote.
How is that possible?
Wow.
Wow.
Wow indeed.
to his credit. These girls, they came, they shared their opinions, they shared their thoughts.
Everyone has rights. Women have rights.
Everybody has these unexamined assumptions about how the world is and how it should be.
And it's like Isaac said, I do this for a living. I express my opinion for a living.
I think it was more casual for them. But I appreciate it coming on. I thought it was a good conversation. And it's good to flesh out the topics. I think they represent what everybody thinks about the issues. I think in that way, it was balanced. I represent kind of the opposite view.
If you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or gel, a stein, a canteen, a jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind, including the starship.
And I'm really not trying to score slam dunks and say, oh, well, I got you in my trap. I'm trying to get people to think about a totally different way of thinking in the sense that you could see so much of the talk is, well, everyone should vote.
And now, join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine here today, the thing that makes everything better.
Everyone has rights. Women have rights.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
Everybody has these unexamined assumptions about how the world is and how it should be.
And it happens now.
to his credit. These girls, they came, they shared their opinions, they shared their thoughts.
And it's like Isaac said, I do this for a living. I express my opinion for a living.
I think it was more casual for them. But I appreciate it coming on. I thought it was a good conversation. And it's good to flesh out the topics. I think they represent what everybody thinks about the issues. I think in that way, it was balanced. I represent kind of the opposite view.
Quite amazing.
If you had to guess, would you guess that you could ever make a gigantic ship like the biggest rocket ever and then just sort of catch it with two chopsticks and a gigantic rocket-grabbing machine?
And I'm really not trying to score slam dunks and say, oh, well, I got you in my trap. I'm trying to get people to think about a totally different way of thinking in the sense that you could see so much of the talk is, well, everyone should vote.
How in the world did you pull that off?
So how was your week?
Everyone has rights. Women have rights.
Elon Musk had a good week.
Everybody has these unexamined assumptions about how the world is and how it should be.
We rolled out robo-cabs.
Let's see. Auto-taxis.
What else? Let's see.
There was a robo-van.
There was a fleet of robots, although they were human-operated.
And now the Starship.
Oh, my goodness.
Oh, my goodness.
What a week. And there's a good possibility that within a month his preferred candidate for president will be president.
We'll talk about that. Meanwhile, according to the Daily Mail, evidence of alien life could be revealed next month, says a NASA filmmaker.
Well, if there's one person you can believe about space and science, it's a filmmaker.
Yeah, a filmmaker.
So we've got this really important source, a filmmaker.
But he does know some real things.
Apparently, there is a real five-hour-long radio burst that comes from a A region, well, I know this region well.
It's called Proxima Centauri.
I like the vacation there.
It's 4.2 light years away from Earth, so the trip is, it's a long trip, but it's worth it.
You should see the beaches.
Oh my God, they're great.
The food, oh, the food on Proxima Centauri.
It's out of this world.
Anyway, they think that maybe, according to the Oxford team, they're analyzing it and they're putting it through the machines and the analysis and they're going to find out what the heck is this.
Because it seems to be that it could be a non-human intelligence.
From our solar system.
No, not from our universe.
Very exciting. Or the other thing it could be.
Do you know what the other thing it could be?
Nothing. Nothing.
It could be just some random noise.
So it's either we've discovered intelligent life somewhere out in the universe capable of sending a radio signal that we can interpret 4.2 light years away from Earth.
Or it's noise.
Just random noise.
They can't tell yet. But it's definitely one of those two things.
I'm going to bet on random noise.
You want to place your bets?
Yeah. I'm going to bet on noise.
Oh, there's always that one person who can't hear.
You never know if it's the troll.
Is it always the same person?
I can't hear.
Everybody else is commenting like they can hear, but I can't hear.
You know what I should do? I should stop thousands of people from having fun in the normal way that they'd like to, so that I can yell, I can't hear.
Thank you, Paul. Anyway, there's another study from, let's see, who had this?
Somebody. Oh, from No Ridge, whatever that is.
No Ridge. That muscle strength is linked to better mental health.
The stronger you are, the smarter you are.
Now, finally, you understand why I'm so smart.
It's my muscles. Yeah.
Yeah. How many times have I told you a million times just this week that your brain and your body are the same organ?
Stop saying there's a brain and there's a body and they're different things.
No. Your body is your brain.
You take care of your body and you're smarter.
What does that mean? Your body's your brain.
The moment you realize that that reframe is true, it's not just something you say.
Your body's your brain.
Take care of your body if you want your brain to work.
And you want to have good mental health and all that stuff?
Get that body going.
Speaking of your body, according to Slay News, 60% of baby food sold in America doesn't meet nutritional standards.
Yikes. Most of it didn't meet protein guidelines.
44% had more sugar than it should have, and 25% didn't even meet the calorie requirement.
So, we don't check the quality of the food we give to toddlers?
Apparently not.
Are you surprised?
No, you're not.
It's exactly what you'd expect.
If I told you, hey, we've never done this before, but I'd like you to study the quality of the food that we serve to toddlers, do you think you would have had to study it?
Well, you could have just asked me, Scott, do you think that the food that we're giving to toddlers is as safe as we'd like it to be?
Huh. Let me just think for a moment.
100% of everything else in the country is fucked up beyond belief.
But no, not the toddler food.
The toddler food's fine.
No, I wouldn't have said that.
I would have said everything in the country is fucked up beyond belief, except for apparently SpaceX and the things that Elon does.
And everything else is fucked up beyond belief.
Oh, but no. The food for the toddlers is the one bright spot among it all.
No, it isn't. It's exactly like everything else in the country.
It's a fraud. In all likelihood.
Everything from our elections to our healthcare to our food for our toddlers to our finance system.
It does appear that it's all broken.
So... There's that.
There's a new potential big discovery, tech explorers talking about it, that some company came up with something called an integer addition algorithm.
That can reduce the electricity needed for AI by 95%.
Thank you. 95%.
What is one of the biggest problems in the country right now?
That we're going to run out of electricity because of all the AI requirements.
It's just massively hungry for electricity.
Way more than we have.
Like 10 times more than the country produces we would need for AI. And we don't really have a way to get there fast enough.
But with a small change in hardware, which has already been prototyped, so they built it, they've tested it on hardware, they can reduce the AI electricity need by 95%.
Now the NVIDIA chips don't have this.
So for the NVIDIA product to go down That much in power need.
They would have to add some kind of hardware fix.
But it seems doable if this checks out.
So we don't know exactly yet if the claim checks out.
But if it did, big, big, big, big, big news for the country.
The world, really.
Well, there's a little-known psychedelic that I never heard of.
That they gave to some rats.
It's got a big scientific name that I've never heard of.
You've never heard of it either. And it's not one of the common ones that people talk about.
It's some new thing.
It's a 5-dimethoxy4-iodafetamoline.
And apparently it causes long-lasting changes to brain structure and cognitive ability in mice.
I said rats, but I should have said mice.
And it can make your mouse smarter and more flexible in the long run.
It stays that way. You wonder what is the...
What's the total potential for modifying your brain permanently with the psychedelics?
And why is it only the psychedelics that seem to do it?
Have you noticed that? If you give your brain something that's not as psychedelic, it might make it a little faster or something, but it does make these radical changes.
Why is it that there's a whole constellation?
It's not even just one kind of psychedelic.
There are several psychedelics that are, let's just say, indicated for improving your brain.
Why are they all psychedelics?
There's something in the mechanism That we don't entirely understand.
And I don't know how the fact that they're all different and they operate in different ways, and yet they would all be like amazingly positive for your brain and your mental health.
I would like to suggest the following.
That what these psychedelics do is less about the exact chemical composition and more about what it allows your awareness to accept.
And once your awareness accepts that you perhaps have some control over how you feel and how you process your world, and that your world is subjective, not objective.
There might be some objective truth to the external world, but it's not available to us.
So once you realize that the stuff you see is a production of your own brain, which is what psychedelics teach you, and you never lose that, once you experience the psychedelic world, you realize, hey, I know what everything is.
Like, I know this is a piece of paper, I can read it.
Everything works, but it's completely different.
How's that possible? How can it be completely different and it still works?
And I even understand all the parts.
That's when you realize that your understanding of the world is completely subjective.
There might be an objective world, but you don't have access to it.
You've just built this little movie in your head.
I believe, and this is just a hypothesis, that once you've experienced the extreme subjectivity of your experience, that you can modify it on demand, and that you can feel that you can, and that that feeling alone would be good for your mental health and good for your overall brain health, because then you become the The maintainer of the health of your brain because you realize that you can.
It just moves it from something out of your control to seemingly something within your control.
Now you might say to me, Scott, that's all very well and good and all happens within your head.
And if you're having a good experience of whatever's happening inside your skull there, that's great for you.
But do you want to get weirder?
Would you like to take it up one level of weirder for Sunday?
Yes, Scott.
Yes. Give it to us weird.
Give it to us hard and weird.
We will. Here it comes.
Hard and weird. There's a double slit experiment, which is being used in a different way than the usual classic physics double slit experiment where they send light through two slits.
And depending on whether it's being observed or measured, it can give you a different result than if nobody's observing or measuring it, which is suggested That perhaps the observation is what makes reality collapse.
Now there's some people who say that's all BS and that's just our human way of interpreting it and nothing like that's happening at all.
So it's not as clear as that.
But there's a new study.
They used a double slit experiment just because it's randomized.
So in this case, they used it as a randomizer, not as the typical double slit thing.
And here's what they did.
They had some people put their attention on it.
And just think about it.
So the people were not in physical or visual contact with it.
So they weren't touching it and they weren't seeing it.
They were just thinking about it really hard.
They were just directing their intelligence toward it.
Another group of people were not thinking about it, not directing their intelligence toward it.
Guess what? You get different results in the double slit experiment if people are thinking about it.
Not even observing it.
Not even observing it.
Thinking about it.
Now, is that true?
I don't know. It's in the news and it's a recreational belief for me.
It's fun. So, let's put it all together.
In the psychedelic state, you have the very clear understanding that you're building your world on your own in your mind.
But then when you're done with the trip, you might say to yourself, well, I'm not actually building a real world in my mind.
It's just in my mind.
And then you find out that the double slit experiment, apparently, in two different ways, one the classic way that measuring makes a difference, but in this less classic way that simply thinking about it changes the randomized results.
That would clearly suggest that you are the author of your experience in a more fundamental way than just an illusion of it.
And so I submit to you that the psychedelics may simply be a key that unlocks your knowledge of how much control you have over your actual experience.
And I will suggest further that if you were to look at some of the most successful entrepreneurs, you would find a very strong correlation between the most successful people and having at least one Psychedelic experience.
That's what the news doesn't want you to know.
Now, am I guessing?
Not exactly.
I'm not exactly guessing.
No. You know, there are things that are not in the news that individuals will tell you.
And I live in Silicon Valley-ish.
You know, I'm outside of it a little bit, but not too far.
I can tell you that some of the most successful people in the world have had at least one Trip.
Now, sometimes they'll tell you it was the difference.
Other times they won't.
And maybe it isn't, and maybe they don't know.
I don't know. But this is getting really close to understanding how things work.
Now, if there were people Who could move reality like that?
Wouldn't we see them?
If somebody could actually got really good at just manipulating reality itself and then sharing it with us, wouldn't we be able to identify those people?
You'd be able to spot them, wouldn't you?
Yeah. One would be called Donald Trump, who learned the power of positive thinking From his pastor at church.
The most famous author on The Power of Positive Thinking was his pastor, coincidentally.
Trump tells you often and clearly that he uses his positivity to simply make the world turn into what he wanted it to be.
And we watch him do it all his life.
Then suddenly, there's a prominent person who notices, hey, there's this guy over here who's making sense and seems to be able to control reality itself.
Wouldn't it be nice if I teamed up with him?
That second person is called Elon Musk, who clearly, clearly understands how to change his reality more than anybody I've ever seen.
He's changing his reality and yours right in front of you.
There's another person who's been pro-Trump, who's had psychedelic experiences, recognizes one when he sees it, and also believes he can change reality fundamentally, not just for himself, but for you as well.
That would be me.
There's another person I can think of who has talked publicly about experiences with hallucinogens, the positive experience, and somebody that you've watched with your own eyes, who started with no power in the world at all, didn't inherit anything, and still is moving reality while you watch.
His name is Mike Cernovich.
Now, I could keep naming names, but not everybody is public.
Not everybody has said, yes, I tried this, I had this experience.
It's not an accident, people.
These are not coincidences.
You're watching people who have gone someplace you haven't gone, including me, and when we came back, we weren't the same.
And we knew it, and we told you.
We didn't come back the same.
And somehow it has been revealed to us that we have some control over the environment that is unusual.
Steve Jobs? Do you think Steve Jobs had any psychedelic experiences?
Yeah. Have you heard of a musical group?
They're called The Beatles.
The Beatles. Have you ever taken time to listen to their music before they had psychedelic experiences?
to his credit. These girls, they came, they shared their opinions, they shared their thoughts.
And it's like Isaac said, I do this for a living. I express my opinion for a living.
Because I want to hold your hand, your hand.
I think it was more casual for them. But I appreciate it coming on. I thought it was a good conversation. And it's good to flesh out the topics. I think they represent what everybody thinks about the issues. I think in that way, it was balanced. I represent kind of the opposite view.
Give me your hand, hand.
And then they did psychedelics.
And then what happened?
And then their music was so amazing, they couldn't even produce it on stage because it required, you know, unusual machines and distorting things and using microphones, you know, microphoning things differently and throwing everything in it that works.
And I'm really not trying to score slam dunks and say, oh, well, I got you in my trap. I'm trying to get people to think about a totally different way of thinking in the sense that you could see so much of the talk is, well, everyone should vote.
They came up with an idea for music, which is if it sounds good, put it in the song.
Everyone has rights. Women have rights.
Well, this doesn't go with that.
Everybody has these unexamined assumptions about how the world is and how it should be.
Yes, it does. Just put it together.
If you look at the level of invention, just invention, that came out of the Beatles after psychedelics, that's the real story.
The real story is the invention.
They reached a point where there was nothing that they wouldn't do or couldn't do, and they knew it.
That was amazing. So, we may be on the cusp of understanding something at such a deep level that you can't even believe it yet.
But it's coming.
Well, one of the things I've told you about having a background in economics And a background in persuasion, as I have both.
Both of those fields are predictive fields.
In economics, you're predicting what happens next.
In persuasion, you're predicting if I do this, I'll get this effect.
And it allows you to sort of see around corners and you kind of sniff things out before you know the details.
And one of the things that I've been a little bit obsessed by just mentally, you know, nothing I've talked about, is how do you move to Florida?
Like, how does that even work?
Now, I understand how to move.
Like, you hire a moving company, you can get a plane ticket and meet your stuff there.
I get that part. I get the physical part.
But I keep watching Florida being devastated by hurricanes, and I say to myself, how could you afford insurance?
If your odds of being taken out are now pretty high, at least let's say in any 20 or 30 year period, your odds of completely losing a house or major damage are really high.
And so my economics background and my persuasion background say, How can that work?
Like, it feels to me like there wouldn't be enough money in the world that would allow in Florida to be insured.
They just you wouldn't be able to buy insurance.
And I was listening to the All In Pod and Freeburg was explaining exactly that.
That it's really hard, almost impossible to get affordable assurance because Florida has apparently, this is his view, gone from maybe your house will get destroyed by a hurricane every 100 or 500 years So that's a good bet.
You can get some insurance. But if the insurance company thinks that wherever your house is, your big expensive $2 million, $3 million house, is where it's going to almost certainly disappear within 20 years, they can't make money unless they're charging you like 5% of your house per year, which nobody would ever pay.
So it is exactly what it smelled like.
So I could smell this for a long time.
I was like, huh.
You know, because I'm always thinking about if California is a hellhole, where can I go?
And Florida is always, you know, the top two, one of the things people mention.
And I think if I went there, I would have an uninsured house.
I don't know how...
Or if I went there when I could get insurance, the moment the insurance business completely collapses, which I think is any day now, my house will be worth half as much.
Because if somebody bought it, they knew they couldn't insure it.
So how much would you pay for a house that you couldn't insure and it's not going to last 20 years?
Well, not much. If I said my house is $2 million, but you knew it almost certainly would just disappear within 20 years, and it could be next year.
It could be six months from now.
It might just disappear.
What would you pay for it?
A $2 million home.
I'll tell you what I'd pay for that.
$100,000? What would you pay for it?
If you knew it would disappear within 20 years and it could be it could be in one year.
You don't know when. What would you pay for that?
It's like $100,000 if you were actually rational.
So I don't know how Florida recovers from this, actually.
It could be that every place is going to look almost as bad, so there's no place to go, so you have to figure it out somehow.
But I don't even think the state has enough money to backstop the insurance business in this case.
Now, California has a similar problem.
But I could smell this one from a long ways away, and here we are.
So the odor was actually accurate that there wasn't a way around it.
I don't know what we're going to do, but probably figure it out somehow.
Speaking of California, the California Coastal Commission They just voted 6-4 to reject SpaceX's proposal to increase the number of Falcon 9 launches from 36 to 50 at Vandenberg, the Space Force base.
And here's part of the reason that the California Coastal Commission rejected the application to simply do more of what they're doing now that's working out great.
Remember, this is not a radical request.
It was a request to do more of what they're already doing.
There hasn't been a problem and it's working out great for everybody.
Here's part of the reason it was turned down.
Because of Musk's political activities.
That's right. Some of the people who turned it down said it was because Musk was too involved in politics in a way that they didn't like.
That's the state I live in.
I actually live in a state that turned down the greatest entrepreneur of our time from expanding business in my state, not for a business reason, not for an environmental reason.
It's because they're idiots.
They're just small idiots.
They should just say, well, we had something that was going to sound like a reason, but honestly, our brains are not very big.
And when we see people being successful, we don't like it.
I'm seeing in the comments that the villages, you know, the villages, that's a gigantic development in Florida.
They were built above the 100-year floodplain, and they're supposed to withstand the hurricanes.
So you can build structures that will survive.
It is doable. So maybe everybody will just move off the beach or something.
Anyway, that's stupid and terrible and my state should be embarrassed.
I mean, it is getting a little embarrassing to be a Californian.
I don't get embarrassed by anything, but if I could be embarrassed, it's all there.
All right, here's a fun story.
I think I saw Jason Whitlock talking about this.
Now, I'm going to put low credibility in this story.
This is just recreational belief, right?
So I'm going to tell you an allegation, but I don't really think it...
I wouldn't take it too seriously.
So it turns out that if you look at a picture of One of Obama's daughters, so he's got two daughters, one of his daughter looks exactly like the chairman of the Obama Foundation.
So it looks more like somebody else's daughter.
But, you know, that's not fair because you've seen a million stories where somebody alleges that some child looks like somebody else and then you find out it really isn't.
However, Obama has a second-order, who coincidentally looks exactly like that Obama Foundation chairman's wife.
And she apparently delivered The daughter.
So she must be a medical person.
I think they're both medical.
Oh, I think they're both doctors.
So the accusation is that coincidentally there are two people who are not Obama and not Michelle who have produced, who may be very, very close with the family and maybe the actual biological parents.
Now, it seems to me that, you know, somebody would know for sure, and by now we'd know if that were true.
So I'm going to say no on that one.
So I'm going to say no on life on other planets.
I'm going to say no on any weird thing with Obama's kids.
So that's my take.
Now, recreationally, if you wanted to believe it recreationally, like, oh, that's fun.
Ah, you know, make your own decisions.
As a public figure, I don't think I would say that.
But you're not public figures, most of you.
So if you're not a public figure, Go ahead, enjoy yourself over dinner, have a drink, talk to your friends, laugh about it, recreational belief.
But no, as a public figure, I don't have any information that would suggest that that's true.
Just fun. Meanwhile, there's Democrat Representative Jasmine Crockett.
She gets a lot of attention because she's so batshit crazy.
So she says you should fear white conservatives, not migrant gangs.
She's saying that again.
Yes, I fear those white conservatives because look at all the things they did.
Well, there was a time they...
Well, you know, the time.
And then the white conservatives, they got...
But then they did the things.
They did the things. The things I can't remember.
But I'm sure they did some bad, bad things too.
So that's the real problem, is those people that...
I can't think of anything, but I'm sure they did.
Oh my God, they're dangerous.
You just listen to Jasmine Crockett.
Well, here's a little warning for you.
Russia has increased its drone production.
So that's no surprise, right?
You know, Ukraine and Russia are more increasingly getting into a drone kind of a war.
So I'm just trying to minimize this story like it's no big deal.
It's nothing to worry about.
You completely understand that it's a modern world and so there'll be more drones.
That's really all you need to know about it, right?
That's all you need to know about Russia making more drones.
Oh wait, their increase in production is tenfold, and they'll have 1.4 million drones by the end of the year.
Wait, 1.4 million?
1.4 million?
If you send one drone after every Ukrainian soldier, you would have way more drones than soldiers.
Right? Like way more?
How do you beat Russia with 1.4 million drones?
Well, unless Ukraine has 3.4 million, which they might.
I mean, we don't know how many Ukraine will have access to, you know, given all the various places it could be produced and sent to them.
I don't know that the United States is making a whole bunch of drones, so I don't think we're shipping them to Ukraine.
Is anybody else? Because we don't have manufacturing.
I thought Russia didn't have a lot of manufacturing, but...
Oh, that's right.
Who is really good at making drones and is good friends with Russia?
Good at making drones, has a major manufacturing facility situation.
Oh, China.
So were you worried that Russia was being driven into the, you know, higher friendship with China?
I remember thinking, ah, well, it's not like they're going to form a military, you know, some kind of military group.
Well, I don't believe that Russia has the ability to make 1.4 million drones unless China is really involved, at least in the raw parts.
They might be assembling them.
They might be assembling them in Russia, but I've got a feeling that they're coming from China.
I don't know, but it seems to make sense because China could do this volume.
Russia probably couldn't.
Speaking of drones, so this story is just blowing my head off.
So as best I can explain it, it goes like this.
So Langley Air Force Base, that's on Virginia's shoreline, you know, big military facility, Langley, has been getting visited by swarms of drones.
Swarms. Not just once.
Regularly. Coordinated Swans.
And I'm not talking about hobby-sized drones.
I'm talking about military-sized drones.
multiples of them operating in a coordinated fashion having full access to our complete skies above our military facilities our generals go out on the roof and look at them and say who the hell is this and we don't know So we don't know where they're coming from.
We don't know what their intention is.
And we can't stop them.
Apparently, there's some law that says that we can't shoot down drones in the United States.
So they're looking to maybe change it so they can at least knock one down and try to figure out if it's a danger and whether or not we should be shooting them all down.
But just hold this in your mind.
Russia's making 1.4 million drones by the end of this year.
And there's a drone.
I don't know the number, but I think it's like some days it's at least a dozen or so.
So it's a serious thing.
It's not a hobbyist.
This is not several people who thought it'd be funny to park their cars near Langley and send their hobby drones over there.
No. Whatever this is, is fully military by its complexity.
So we have a military force That has complete control of one of our Air Force bases.
Because if they can do this, they just have to send more of them, and they could take out every asset on the base.
What would happen if a million drones suddenly took to the air over Langley?
There would be nothing left.
Do you think somebody could put a million drones into one facility that's on the shoreline?
I do. I do.
Because you know what's next to a shoreline?
A giant ocean.
All you'd have to do is bring one tanker in that looked like it was delivering some packages, had a bunch of tanker, has a bunch of, you know, stuff on the surface.
All of a sudden the tops open up and a million drones come out of the gigantic tanker.
And they go, I don't know, 20 miles.
Can a military drone go 20 miles?
I think so. So could you unleash 100,000 drones from a ship that's just offshore from our military bases?
I think so. I think you could.
Do you think that they're doing that now?
Do you think that the most likely destination and source for where these little swarms are coming from is more likely the ocean, meaning a ship, than land?
I don't know. So I've got a feeling we're being probed, but I also have a feeling that it might be a warning shot.
In other words, if it's a RAN, Let me put it another way.
I don't think Russia would do this.
I don't think Russia would be this provocative.
This is way over the line.
If this is Russia, this is way over the line.
And this is not Putin's style.
So we haven't seen Putin do, for example, terrorist attacks in the United States.
Way over the line.
It's not really a style.
And people do kind of stick to a style.
How about North Korea?
Do you think North Korea is doing this?
No. No.
They probably don't have the capability.
But why would they?
Why would they even do it?
How about China?
China has the capability.
Absolutely. And they sent the big weather balloon that was really a spy balloon.
So you say, well, if they sent the spy balloon, wouldn't they send some drones just to see what's going on?
To which I say, I don't think so.
Because it's a whole different level of provocation.
You know, the spy balloon, they can just say, whoops, spy balloon went off course, didn't mean it.
But if you're sending continual swarms of drones over a military asset, you can't explain that away.
You can't say we were just flying by and we got lost.
So it's possible that China could be behind it, but it feels a little too provocative for China.
So who would potentially have the capability in the drone sense, but also have the, let's say, the interest and the risk-reward situation where they would do it?
My answer is Iran.
If Iran wanted to make sure that the United States was attackable, but more importantly, wanted to make sure we knew it in advance so that we don't attack them, They might do this, but they might want to keep just enough deniability that we don't use it as an excuse to attack.
So if they can find this narrow band of, uh-oh, if that's the Iranians, we're going to lose tremendous amounts of assets if we go hard at Iran.
Basically, just a warning.
You know we have complete control of the air over anything we want in your country, right?
Maybe. So, if I had to guess, I'd say Iran would be at the top of my list because they have the right risk-reward.
You know, they're in a high-risk situation.
They would do something riskier.
But they wouldn't necessarily pull the trigger.
They would provoke harder, as they do, and they would want to make sure that we knew that there was going to be a pushback that would be intense.
I mean, we would lose our electrical grid.
If you can put a swarm of drones anywhere you want, and these are big ones, remember, these are not small.
These are serious payload kind of drones.
They could take out anything they want in the United States.
They could take it down our grid.
So, as I've advised, I would suggest that if you have the ability to organize or find any kind of secondary source of electricity, have a backup plan if you lose power, I think the odds of the United States losing power to a military or terrorist attack in the next 12 months is at least 20%.
Now, we wouldn't lose it everywhere at the same place.
It would be localized, but it could be localized to an entire state.
I mean, it could be localized really big.
So, I would plan For a survival plan for if you lose power.
Now, where I live, I intentionally chose the place I live because I can survive the weather in most situations without power, right?
I mean, it would take me some blankets to survive the cold, and I'd have to, you know, fan myself in the summer and stay in the shade, but I wouldn't die I wouldn't die.
If you're in a place where if you lost your electricity for three months, you'd die, you should maybe at least have a backup plan to visit a relative in a warmer place.
You know, someplace that's survivable just by its nature.
So do a little bit more planning.
I would ask all of you to make sure you have some food that's going to last a while.
Make sure you have some water filters or lots of excess water.
But also make sure you've coordinated with other people so that if you can help them or they can help you in an emergency.
So I would get planning.
The odds of losing electricity, pretty good.
Pretty good. And I've never said that before, by the way.
This is the first time that I think this is a serious risk.
So, and those drones are mostly what's scaring me.
The Trump campaign has requested military aircraft and bulletproof glass amid the security threats.
Huh. Why would Trump need more bulletproof glass?
You know, he already has bulletproof glass, but why does he need more?
And why would they need military aircraft?
Drones. To me, it looks like the Trump campaign has heard that Iran has designs to get them back and would use the same similar tool to the kind of tool that took Soleimani out.
Soleimani was taken out by a drone?
Was it a drone or a missile or was it a road-sided, automated robot attack?
I can't remember. But it would seem similar if they used high-tech to take out an American leader, if America used high-tech to take out one of their leaders.
Now, if Iran plans to take Trump out, I think they need to do it before he gets elected.
Because Soleimani was not the top guy in Iran.
Trump is not the top guy in the United States yet.
If they wait until he is the top guy and they take him out, Iran is going to disappear.
If they take him out now, the Democratic Party is going to say, oh, that's so terrible.
Oh, I sure wish that hadn't happened.
And we're not even going to be able to agree on the response.
So if they take him out before he gets elected or even before he gets sworn in, that's their best play.
And if they're the ones behind these drones, Trump would be completely unprotected in any outdoor event.
Unless the military just owns the sky over any Trump traveling.
And remember, they would have to own the sky over where his automobiles are.
So if they land at the airport and they drive to the venue, you've got to protect the whole thing.
You've got to do the sky.
Because remember, Soleimani was in a car.
Right? So if Iran wanted to simply say, we're just giving it back to you the way you gave it to us, we're not escalating.
We're giving you back exactly what you gave us.
We're going to take a guy who's not number one, and we're going to take him out in his car, and we're going to take him out using technology.
And then we're even.
Now, I can't read their minds, but if I were Iran and I absolutely had to get revenge, it's the only way I would be thinking about doing it.
I wouldn't even be thinking about anything else, honestly.
Because if they took out, let's say, a senator, It's not going to cripple the United States, but it wouldn't seem like it was equal to Solomon A. You need somebody who is involved in it, But not the president yet.
I hate to say that the risk to Trump right now is higher risk than I've ever seen for anybody ever, honestly.
Because I'm not even sure that the deep state even cares to protect them at this point.
So this is the highest level of threat by far.
Now, part of this context Is that we're going to see what I call the Kamala collapse.
Now I'm going to brand this with two K's.
K for Kamala and K for collapse.
Because it looks funnier.
And according to the Guardian, Trump's making gains as the poll figures trigger anxiety for the Harris campaign.
You know, you're seeing all the cat on the roof stuff.
It's like, well, you know, privately they're very worried.
We've heard reports that their internal polling, which we imagine to be a higher quality because it's more expensive than the free stuff, is saying that Harris isn't a lot of trouble.
The Guardian's 10-day polling average tracker showed them that Harris was still ahead, but down from 4% to 2%.
2% is within the margin of error.
And if Trump is within the margin of error on the national vote, that's probably a landslide in the Electoral College, because that's just the way it works.
And so how worried are the Democrats?
Well, a Politico analysis, they looked at 20 of Trump's rallies, and they found out that he's really doing a lot of demonizing of minority groups in all of them.
Demonizing minority groups.
I've never heard that once.
I've listened to Trump for years.
In detail.
I've never heard him demonize a minority group.
Have you? Do you know what they mean when they say he's demonizing a minority group?
He's saying that the murderers have bad genes.
Murders. Specifically murderers.
He was very clear. Not people in general.
Murders. And that they're polluting the blood of this country.
The murderers. The criminals.
The murderers. And then the bad guys say he's talking about people from other countries.
That racist. That never came out of his mouth.
And I'm pretty sure he doesn't think it.
Do you think that Trump, with all the people he's met in his life, all the different, you know, demographic groups, the races, the religions, do you think he's disliking the ones who are nice to him?
If there's one thing we know about Trump for sure, it could be the worst person in the world, but if they said, you know, I'm pro-Trump, Trump would immediately say, hey, I love you.
You want to have dinner? You're on the team.
Yay! Trump doesn't demonize anybody who likes him.
And when people don't like him, he's really, really good at staying away from demonizing the group.
He demonizes the political group sometimes, but that's what everybody does.
So if you see this desperation that they're trying to turn Trump into a racist by making up some data, desperation.
Meanwhile, I saw this post by Ryan Vertanen.
He's behind the American Debunk site that debunks all the Trump hoaxes.
So if you haven't seen it, it's AmericanDebunk.com.
Anyway, so he says this.
He says, I work in a large urban school district as an administrator.
Parents of black and Hispanic kids come to pick up their kids in Trump shirts and hats every day, it seems.
One parent has a Trump flag on their car.
This wasn't a thing two years ago.
A major shift is taking place.
Now, I've noticed the same on social media.
It seems that Black and Hispanic people in the United States are no longer afraid of saying, yeah, Trump's a better choice.
And I don't believe that they could be saying that publicly or doing these public displays like the school pickups unless...
Private conversations are at least balanced, meaning that when they go back to the barbershop or whatever racist trope you want to use, that people are at least split.
And I believe that in maybe 2016, 2020, you couldn't really admit that you were a Trump supporter if you were Black or Hispanic without getting an unpleasant pushback.
I feel as though the unpleasantness of the pushback is over.
Or people just said, I don't care how unpleasant it is, which is also telling.
So to me, this is actually a bigger indicator than the polls.
The polls, we worry that they put the assumptions in them that they want to put in them to get the result they want.
But if you see people suddenly go from afraid to not afraid, and it's widespread, fear is the biggest persuader.
Fear is gone. Fear is gone.
Apparently the migrant push is scary for the people who have the most to lose, the people who would be competing the most for those kinds of jobs, etc.
And they noticed. And the fear of this white supremacist magical group that nobody seems to know where they are or who they are or doesn't see any indications of trouble, it shifted to, I can see these people and they don't have jobs, which means they want to get one, which means they're competing with me.
And wait, why are they getting all this money?
If I knew you had this much money to help people in America, why wasn't I getting it?
Where's my reparations and all that?
So I think this is real.
The shift is real.
And it's based on what is the scariest.
And the scariest is now the migrant situation and not some magical white supremacist.
And it really helps that Trump was president once.
Nothing of the worst case happened and in fact he was pretty good in a lot of things that black Americans like.
Well, there's evidence that Kamala Harris's audiences are fake.
Michael Tracy, independent journalist.
Somebody said he was working with Glenn Greenwald on this.
I don't know the details. But he somehow figured out that the audience was organized by an audience company.
Now, you might know that TV shows always have a live, or often have a live audience.
That live audience is not a natural audience.
They're not people who just signed up and wanted to be there.
Some are. Some are.
But they can't have any risk that the audience is partly empty.
So the people running the shows pay a company to literally stop people and say, would you be willing to take some money to be at this taping?
It's a very common thing.
So apparently the Harris campaign is...
Using this method to make sure that her rallies do not look under attended.
Now, I don't have a big problem with that, actually, believe it or not, because, you know, politics is so fake that if you fake your audience, I would say, well, you know, not ideal.
But if you were to list, you know, the top 20 things that bother you in politics, that'd be like 21.
I got a lot more things to complain about than that.
But on top of that, there was a cell phone analysis that showed that most of them are from California.
They're basically friendlies that follow her from place to place.
So her support does seem largely fake.
Now here's an interesting story that you may have been following forever.
Rasmussen and Patrick Byrne are still talking about this one, and it's because it's not resolved.
So there was a claim by a, let's call him a whistleblower, but a witness, who claimed to be an independent truck driver doing some work for the U.S. Post Office.
And the story goes, according to Patrick Byrne, that when he went to get his pickup, in other words, other people would load his truck, and then when they're done, he'd go drive it where I was supposed to drive.
And he noticed that, probably accidentally, he was loaded with fake ballots.
Which he saw with his own eyes.
And then something happened where the truck disappeared or something.
So then something mysteriously happened after.
But the thinking, or at least Patrick Byrne's explanation now, is that he got into the illegal stream of trucks that were being loaded intentionally with illegal fake ballots.
And they didn't realize that he wasn't one of theirs.
So they accidentally put the fake ballots on a truck that wasn't meant for accidental ballots, and the truck driver noticed.
So they had to quickly do whatever they did to make it go away.
Now, Patrick Byrne claims he has knowledge that seems confirmed, according to him, that he knows exactly how the cheat happened.
And it goes like this.
There's a ballot printing company that won the contract for a number of states.
There's some concern about the ownership of the company, that maybe they have some connections to something political and or, you know, deep state.
But, you know, that's an unconfirmed, we don't know that that's part of the story or not.
And that what they do is they print the real ballots and then they print a whole bunch of extra fake ballots.
So the best way to hide a fake ballot printing operation is in a real ballot company.
Because if anybody said, did he make any fake ballots?
Everybody working there would say, no, we just made ballots.
We sell ballots to the states.
So did you see anything that looked wrong?
No, we just made ballots like we always do.
What'd you do with them? Well, we put them on trucks.
Did you see where the trucks go?
No, I mean, I'm not the trucker.
I'm in charge of making these totally real ballots.
So how many did you need to make for that estate?
Well, I don't know. I'm not in charge of that.
I'm just making the ballots.
So you could see how very easily a company that was set up to make real ballots Could have a hundred witnesses to the fake ballots, but not have any idea that they were making fake ballots.
They would think that they needed to make 300,000, but really the order was for 200.
And the 100,000 get peeled off, put in a special truck, and end up with the bad people sent to a place.
Now, Patrick Byrne even says he knows the location and the address where the fake ones were filled out.
And there was just some major operation where they send them to one place.
The criminals are there, they fill them out, and that's the end of it.
Now, there's some kind of FOIA request they're trying to expedite to see if they can really find some more before the election.
Given that it's this close to the election and it's been years that they haven't been able to get satisfaction and real details, I don't expect it to make a difference in the election.
But I feel if you add this to the foreign ballots that appear to be totally fraudulent based on reporting, That we know now exactly how the fraud is done.
We know exactly how it's done.
So, does that mean that, you know, Laura Trump and Whitley and RNC and all their lawyers and observers, are they going to catch any of this?
How? How would they catch it?
Are they going to be standing next to somehow they would know where the trucks are going to be loaded?
Because part of the story is that the postal facility where it happened was one where they don't even do first-class mail.
In other words, there's a big red flag that these ballots should have been nowhere near this specific postal facility, because that postal facility doesn't do first-class mail, and it was only first-class mail.
Ballots are first-class. So I don't know about that claim.
It seems to me that the entire structure of the steel is now well known by some people who are claiming they know it.
Now, let me be very careful, because I don't want to be sued.
I don't personally have any confirming knowledge that any of these things are real or happening.
I can tell you they sound real.
They sound real to me.
If you had to make a list of what is more likely to be true, and you put on it that we discovered alien life on another planet, not very likely.
The fact that we might know exactly how the election was stolen in 2020, or some people, how likely is that?
Way more likely than alien life.
Way more likely.
Not 100%.
Certainly not 100%.
Coin flip, maybe?
50-50? Now remember, if you don't know one way or another, you don't have anything to tell you one way or another, I usually settle on 50-50.
50-50 means I have no idea.
And there's just no way to guess.
But it could be true.
There's nothing about it that rules it out on its surface based on what you and I know about it.
But it could also be fake.
50-50. But it does suggest that the odds of catching at least one of these trucks with fake ballots is probably a lot higher than it was in 2020.
Now, they would be stupid to do it the same way.
So it would be completely ridiculous to make fake ballots if they did, and then send them to the same postal place where somebody's probably going to be watching.
That would be a big mistake.
But it wouldn't be a big problem, would it, to find a second way to do it?
Is there another entity that could print them without getting caught?
Maybe. Don't know.
So we got a lot of unknowns this time, but that's certainly getting exciting.
And by the way, the number of ballots that would have been on those trucks if they were fake does number in the low millions.
So we're not talking about 10,000 ballots.
We're talking millions.
We don't know how many millions.
It might be 1 million, but that's enough to change every one of the swing states.
1 million would change every swing state.
All right. Rasmussen is sort of having fun, making fun of the other polling companies.
So they're reporting that last weekend there were zero new national polls versus Trump, Harris versus Trump.
Now, I didn't know it was zero.
I thought some came out. But their point is that the people who would normally, you would expect to have all kinds of new balloting or new polling, very quiet.
Why would they be quiet?
Well, It could be they're trying to decide whether to tweak the assumptions that they use when they collect it to get closer to what they expect now to be the real result, as in Trump being close or winning.
So the ones that have been showing Harris way ahead by like four points and stuff that seems ridiculous to me, they're going to have to either slowly or quickly close that down to something closer to reality.
So, things get real quiet when people haven't decided which way to go or how quickly to correct.
That's probably what's going on.
Now, Rasmussen is closer to it than you are, and I am.
And if they say that's what's going on, well, they are in a position to have a better instinct about it than you and I are.
Let's see. The legacy media, also from Rasmussen, noting that the legacy media is pressing Republicans to deny that 2020 was election fraud.
Why would they be doing that?
2020 is so far away.
Why would they be pressing them today?
Why would George Stephanopoulos be having the biggest hard-on in the world and can't let anybody say anything unless they first say that 2020 was a perfectly good election?
Well, I don't know.
Say it! Say it!
What do you... Say it!
And they're just like crazy about it now because I think they know they lost.
They lost the narrative.
Not the election yet, but they lost the narrative.
Because people like me are willing to say, I'm sure the 2020 election was rigged.
I don't have any knowledge of it.
I don't have any proof of it.
But I live in a country where I just watched every single fucking thing in the country be obviously rigged.
Everything. And you're going to tell me that the one most riggable, most easily rigged thing is the one that isn't.
That is fucking ridiculous.
And let me tell you, I would love to have the mainstream media ask me why a stupid old voter like me would think the 2020 election might not be pristine.
Because I will fucking kill them.
Not kill them, kill them, but, you know, in a verbal way.
I would embarrass them to the point where they would never want to talk to me.
Have you noticed that nobody in the traditional news has asked to interview me this cycle?
Do you think it's because I'm cancelled?
It's not. Don't you think they would love to have the cancelled guy on?
If they're trying to make all Republicans and anybody who likes Trump looking like a bad person, I'm the person they would put on the air.
They'd say, well, you're well known to be a terrible racist.
What do you say about this election?
Nope. No, they're staying away from me.
I have zero media requests.
Do you know how many media requests I got in 2016?
Continuous. Non-stop.
Be on our show, be on our show, CNN, be on our show, MSNBC, even MSNBC had me on.
And total number of media requests, total number for this cycle?
Zero. Are they afraid of me?
They should be. They should be scared to death of me.
If they give me five minutes, I would rip their entire structure out.
Like nobody has.
They should. I don't know why it hasn't been done.
It's so easy. It's so easy.
You just have to push the 20-20 question right up their ass.
Please clarify, are you saying that if you saw an election that looked obviously on a whack, that you would accept it?
Is that what you're asking me to say?
Are you asking me to say that if Harris won all 50 states when the polling said it would be the opposite, that I should just accept that?
You sound like you're getting ready to do something terrible.
Has somebody gotten to you?
Are you part of this?
Because there's something very suspicious about the question you're asking me.
Why would he even ask me this question?
You know damn well that every single person in the world, no matter whether they're Republican, Independent, or Democrat, if they see an election that's obviously corrupt, they're all going to complain.
And we live in a country where, even if it does look perfectly good, the losing side's going to complain a little, but we'll probably get away with that, and that probably would work out.
But don't ask me a question that is so obviously politically propaganda-brainwashed.
Fucking stupid. Everybody would...
Everybody. Everybody.
Every fucking person in the world would challenge an election if you could look at it, and with your bare eyes, it looked obviously corrupt.
Everybody would question that.
Stop asking the dumb fuck question.
And Republicans, can you please fucking wake up and just ask them, why are they asking this fucking question?
Why are you asking the question, would I accept an election if it looks like it's rigged?
Would you? George Stephan Fuckinopoulos, would you accept an election if it looked obviously rigged against your team?
No. No, you wouldn't accept it.
You fucking liar.
Let's wrap this thing up.
That's your kill shot.
That's your kill shot.
Let's use it. It's only going to take one person with enough scrotum in the Republican side to just say the thing that needs to be said, and then maybe we can put this to rest.
So, that's what I think.
Well, The Hill has a story from Douglas MacKinnon.
He's an opinion guy. And the subtitle for his article is The Four Reasons Harris is Losing.
Let me tell you something that's very predictive.
If you see a story that says there's one reason that somebody might be losing, maybe they lose, maybe they don't.
If you see a story that says there are two reasons that somebody might lose, Maybe they will, maybe they won't.
But, you know, two reasons, so you're leaning in that direction.
If you see a story that says there are four reasons Harris is losing, she's losing.
It's over. Do you remember in Winn Bigley, my book that you can see over this shoulder, is just recently re-released, you can get it on Amazon.
And one of the things I talk about there is that after Hillary lost, there were something like 14 or 20 different reasons given for why she lost.
When you see the long list of reasons why somebody's behind, it's over.
It's so predictive.
You just don't see that story unless it's over.
Now, of course, the cheat.
The cheat is still an option, so we don't know what's going to happen in the end.
But in terms of who's going to get the most votes in the right places, every signal is flashing Trump.
Every signal is Trump right now, very brightly.
Here's the dumbest guy in the news.
There's this guy who's the governor of Utah, I guess, Spencer Cox.
And Trump was praising him in Utah, I guess, saying what a good governor he was.
But at the same time, Cox was on the news saying that he wasn't going to vote for Trump because of January 6th.
How dumb do you have to be?
How dumb do you have to be to say that the world will be terrible if Harris is elected and It won't be nearly as bad if Trump is elected.
He says that. He even hopes that Trump gets elected and does a good job, but he's not going to vote for him.
You're a fucking idiot.
You're a fucking idiot.
There's nothing else to say about this.
If you're not going to vote for the person you know who will save the country, And the other one could destroy it because you're a little January 6th believing in bullshit because you got brainwashed because you're such a weak-minded piece of shit that you think that the news tells the truth and then you believed it?
And you're going to help destroy the country because you believe that?
That's pretty dumb.
That's pretty dumb. Tim Walsh went pheasant hunting to prove that he's a guy.
He did wear crotchless pheasant hunting pants, but I'm not going to judge him.
They were crotchless, but they went over his regular pants, so his junk was not hanging out.
But if you show me Tim Walsh in any kind of crotchless outfit, I'm not going to ignore it.
I'm not. No.
I will note that the rumor I hinted at yesterday about Tim Walsh is still blazing online.
I don't know if it's going to calm down or go further.
I'm going to stay with my view that I would need a lot more evidence of the allegations before I would even detail them.
So because it's in the news, at least the social media news, I'm going to mention it because it's a variable and it might be important.
So he's accused of doing something so bad that I'd rather not say it unless there's a lot better evidence of it.
I don't think...
Now, you can. I mean, if you're not a public figure...
Maybe you believe it. You could talk to your friends about it.
But as a public figure, I feel like I have a little bit more responsibility, and I don't feel a strong pull of truth to this one.
It doesn't have a strong pull of truth.
It could be. Any claim about anybody could surprise you and be true.
But I don't know.
I'd probably bet against it, but it's closer to a coin flip in my mind.
So, you won't see it in any of the major media, and the fact that you don't see it in any of the major media is exactly why I think I'll stay away from it.
But it's there, just so you know.
Meanwhile, over on MSNBC, they had John Brennan on, and he said that Trump and Putin have been best buds for a number of years.
And that they were talking to him because Woodward's book said that Trump had talked to Putin several times since he left office.
Now, have I told you a million times that if what you know is what happened, you don't know anything.
If you know who was involved, then you know everything.
So you see this in almost all the news stories.
Tell me what happened and I'm clueless.
Did that really happen?
Is that the right context?
Why'd they do that? What's behind it?
You don't know anything. The facts tell you nothing.
Until you find out which team is behind it.
Once you know what team is behind it, well then you have a good idea what's going on.
Here's the team. What do MSNBC, John Brennan, and Bob Woodward all have in common?
Go. Let's see how well-trained you are.
In the comments, you tell me what the three of them have in common.
You could do funny answers.
Funny answers are allowed, but there's a serious one.
What is the serious answer?
I'm seeing in the comments people are putting the accusations down there for walls.
So here's what they have in common.
MSNBC is commonly considered to be a Democrat slash intelligence organ that is not really a real news station, but rather a propaganda machine for the CIA and deep state.
Is that true? I don't know.
But that's the accusation.
John Brennan used to be the head of the CIA. He was behind the Russia collusion hoax and the Hunter laptop hoax.
You know who he is.
How about Woodward?
Woodward was the Watergate guy he got famous in.
But weirdly, some people say he didn't have much experience to get one of the best jobs you could get in journalism at the time, which was to work at the Washington Post.
But he did have some intelligence background.
And the Washington Post often accused of being really just a tool of the intelligence state.
So what you have in common with MSNBC, Woodward, and Brennan is that they would be associated with the worst Trump hoaxes and that they would be basically sanctioned by a number of spooks in our government.
Now, does the story look different?
If you only knew the facts, It would look like, hmm, maybe something to worry about with Trump and Putin.
A little too chummy? But as soon as you know that the three entities involved are MSNBC, Brennan, and Woodward, you can completely dismiss it.
You can completely dismiss it.
Now, somebody said TDS. Nope.
No, this isn't a TDS story.
John Brennan definitely doesn't have TDS. Woodward doesn't have TDS. MSNBC doesn't really have TDS. They act like it.
No, they are part of an op to make Trump look bad.
They are a functioning op that you're seeing in full form, operating as a team, right in front of you.
One of them writes a book, one of them puts the guy who will talk about the book and put it in the context that they want, and they put them on the air.
Write a book, Get a CIA guy, put him on the air.
Those are the three parts you need for your propaganda.
Once you see the players, when you recognize the players, you see the ops almost like a moving machine going through the consciousness of the country.
Let's see. Israel's prime minister, Netanyahu, Telling the United Nations that they might want to get rid of their peacekeepers in Lebanon, because there's not going to be a lot of peace there.
And if they keep them there, they will be in pieces.
They will be the peacekeepers in pieces.
Now, that sounds pretty serious.
Apparently, Israel has had no real invasion success in Lebanon recently, meaning that they haven't really taken a land, which means they probably will.
And a question that I wonder about is, why hasn't Israel, or maybe they haven't, we don't know, why haven't they by now just blackened the sky over Lebanon with drones that are just sort of circling and waiting for somebody to pull out one of those rocket launchers?
Because my understanding is there, you know, I don't know, 80,000 rocket launchers or whatever, and that they're hidden, and I think they're all on big trucks.
And to use them, they have to, you know, pull them out of their hiding temporarily and aim them.
It doesn't take long, unfortunately.
So they're not out there very long.
But by now, Israel should have complete blanket coverage visually.
Oh, maybe it doesn't work at night.
But it seems like they would have so much visual control Of the areas where there are likely to be rockets, that they would always have a drone that was within striking distance, you know, within 60 seconds.
And probably it takes, I'm just guessing, but it's got to take at least 10 minutes, maybe half an hour to pull one of these out and make it fire.
So I would think that Israel could get munitions on every rocket within 60 seconds.
They must be getting close to that point.
So I think that they may want to invade when they know that the invasion will trigger all the rockets to come out, because they're going to want to pummel Israel to try to make a deal to quit.
And maybe Israel would only do the invasion for the specific purpose of activating all the launchers, but not until they have complete ability to destroy everyone as soon as it comes out.
I think that's what's going to happen.
So my military...
You know, my complete lack of military knowledge will go into this, that the best thing they can do is get rid of the rockets.
That's the biggest thing they have to do.
And to do that, they have to stimulate them to come out of their hiding.
And that is only good if they've already blanketed the entire sky, which by now they have.
So I think the land invasion is guaranteed, if only to mop things up and make sure that the rockets are visible so they can destroy them.
Will they take and hold land?
I think yes, but not as Israel.
I think they'll take it and they'll hold it as a puppet government.
So the so-called government of Lebanon is sort of artificial and not even real, isn't it?
So I think somebody is going to puppetize them.
I don't know what it'll be. All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, that's all I got for today.
So I'm going to talk to the local subscribers.
By the way, if you didn't know, the Dilbert 2025 calendar is available for pre-sale.
The actual deliveries will be in maybe the next several weeks.
The sooner you get them, the sooner they will be produced because we're making them on demand.
So don't wait for the week before Christmas because they're on demand.
So we may be out of them by then.
So you want to get them, I would order before December 1st.
You're probably okay in the first two weeks, but I wouldn't wait if you want one.
I'd do it certainly before December 1st.
Sooner is better. All right.
We're going to go talk to the locals people right away.
