All Episodes
Feb. 7, 2025 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:28:47
Episode 2743 CWSA 02/07/25

Find my Dilbert 2025 Calendar at: https://dilbert.com/God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazonhttps://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals:https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, DOGE Big Balls, FEC Commissioner Firing, Ellen Weintraub, Senator Fetterman, Nicole Shanahan, USAID Omnibus Funding, Thomas Massie, USAID Palestine Cement Factory, Budget Waste & Fraud Estimate, USAID Funding Atrocities, Elon Musk, NGO Scam Process, USAID Media Premium Subscriptions, Politico Pro Subscriptions, Mike Cernovich, Marco Rubio, USAID Staff Reduction, Mike Benz, Domestic Policy Fake Reality, President Obama, Smith-Mundt Act, NGO Domestic Propaganda Operations, Operation Mockingbird, 1975 Church Committee, Color Revolution Target Groups, Capacity Building, Russian Puppet Smear Technique, Iran Drone Carriers, Iran Nuclear Development, President Trump, Scott Adams~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, includingmicro-lessons on lots of useful topicsto build your talent stack, please seescottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or chalice, a stein, a canteen, a jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
Go.
Ah, it's the elixir of the gods.
I wonder if there are any new stories.
About the benefits of drinking coffee.
Checking notes?
Yes, there is.
According to Get Suri, Ellen Jen writes that drinking one extra cup of sugar-free coffee a day is linked to weight loss.
I believe that I'm only a few cups away from disappearing totally.
If there's less of you, the more you drink coffee, I'm about ready to disappear.
So, that's how I'm going to go.
Just drink coffee until I don't exist.
If you're following the Dilbert comic that you can only watch if you're on the Locals platform, but there's a lot of political stuff on there, if you don't want that, that's not for you.
But if you just want to see the comic that has continued since my cancellation two years ago, it's called Dilbert Reborn, and you can get it on the X platform just at the subscription button.
And here's what you would be finding.
You would find that the new comic will tell you the problem with hiring...
The low-bid hitman.
Yeah, so Dogbert is in the role of a hitman, and you see what happens when you take the low bid for your hitman.
It doesn't go well.
But here's the more interesting thing.
I also publish that whatever comic ran exactly 10 years ago from whatever date today is.
So the comics that ran exactly 10 years ago are so on point for right now.
It's about humanoid robots being introduced into Dilbert's house and, you know, what goes wrong.
And, oh my God, did I call it 10 years ago.
You have to see it to see how on point it is for today.
Anyway, so go take a look at that.
In other news, yay, we'll get to the hard news in a minute.
I'd like to ease you into it with some lesser hard news.
So apparently, yay.
He's making a buzz on social media.
I think he's got a new album out.
And he's apparently off his meds.
And I'm not going to tell you any of the things that he said, in all caps, shouting like crazy on X. But let me tell you.
He looks like he's off his meds.
It's just absolute mental illness.
There's no other way to...
No other way to look at it.
He says he's off his meds, by the way.
He thinks he was misdiagnosed as bipolar.
So now he thinks he's autistic.
He is not autistic.
I'm pretty sure that's not right.
But, I don't know.
We'll see.
In other news, a simulation alert.
Simulation alert.
Simulation alert.
Everybody, simulation alert.
Here's how you know you live in a simulation.
The confirmation vote for the new budget chief, Democrats tried to delay it.
They tried to delay the vote for somebody named Russ Vote.
That's right.
His name sounds like Rush the Vote, and they delayed the vote for Rush Vote.
That's all.
That's the whole story.
Simulation alert.
Meanwhile, there's a Michigan Democrat state legislator who decided to announce that she's going to sterilize herself, actually already has, to avoid giving birth in Donald Trump's America, according to the Gateway Pundit, Colin Lineberger.
So, I would regard this as a combination of mental illness.
And probably something she wanted to do anyway that had nothing to do with anything.
She's 36, hasn't had a kid, I guess.
So I don't know how much sex she was having, but she won't be having any extra Democrats.
In the most important story of the entire year, one of the Doge team members used to go by the name, a secret name online, Big Balls.
And Big Ball said some pretty inappropriate things.
Yeah, pretty inappropriate.
And once that all came out, you would be surprised to hear that somebody who was once working for USAID, and now works for the Wall Street Journal, outed that Doge person.
Huh.
Feels like everything's coming together.
And now we understand.
Every time you hear that somebody like Liz Cheney came in or AOC were birthed by the USAID funding, you have to say to yourself, hmm, is this really describing the entire structure we see?
That all the people that we know to be turds came from the same place?
That would be kind of a big coincidence.
Anyway.
So the best part is that CNN did a part in this in which Aaron Burnett and Kara Swisher were talking about it because you just can't have somebody working on your team named Big Balls who once said offensive things online under a pseudonym.
Anyway, what's the point of having a pseudonym if you can't be anonymous?
But here's the best part.
I believe that the media thought that they would hurt Musk and his effort by giving a lot of attention to big balls.
And I don't think they know much about Elon Musk because big balls is the funniest thing you could possibly do.
And the more you talk about it on CNN, the happier I am.
I think you should do the whole segment on big balls.
There should be more of a special.
I'd like to see them delve deeper into it.
But here's the thing.
And I love the fact that they thought they were defeating the monster.
You know, they would think that Elon Musk is the monster.
And so the way they thought they would defeat him is talking about big balls.
That's really feeding the monster.
I mean, if you're really afraid of him, don't feed him stories about big balls.
He's going to be dining on that all day, so to speak.
So there's one thing missing with this story, and I think you can all tell what's missing.
You know what's missing, right?
It doesn't have a clever name yet.
So we need to have some kind of a name to talk about this scandal about the big balls.
I'm going to go first.
I'm going to call it a scrotum gate.
Scrotum gate.
Everybody in?
Do you like that?
So whenever we talk about it, it'll just be scrotum gate.
Elon is running a poll on X to see if he should bring back the...
He quit, by the way.
Big balls quit once the news got out.
And I can understand that.
But Elon wants to bring him back.
Now, here's my take.
If somebody who is a teenager or 19 years old said something that we all agree is absolutely inappropriate, but did it anonymously, Did it anonymously.
I don't have a problem with it.
Because every 19-year-old boy is saying deeply inappropriate things all the time.
And if he was doing it anonymously, he knew that it was not something that you could put in the public domain.
Somebody else put it in the public domain.
So my problem is not with anything he said.
Because I just can't blame a 19-year-old for having inappropriate, especially a man, a 19-year-old male.
It's all we have is inappropriate thoughts.
Do you understand what a 19-year-old male is?
That is a person who has non-stop inappropriate thoughts.
That's all we do at that age.
Do we grow out of it?
Sometimes.
Sometimes.
Not all the time.
Anyway, big balls might be back, but we'll keep an eye on scrotum gate.
Fox News says that a big consulting firm, PwC, they're going to have a big conference this summer trying to get high-performing college students an opportunity to work for their company.
Oh, that's good.
Yeah, big consulting company wants to make sure that the high-performing students get to check out their job offerings.
Oh, wait.
It specifically excludes white and Asian applicants.
So it's a DEI policy or something like it.
So apparently not everybody got the memo that if you openly discriminate against white and Asian applicants, it's not going to end well.
It might not go your way in the long run.
So maybe rethink breaking the law.
I've got to look at this comment because it looks interesting.
Ron Paul says on X, Well, that does seem approximately true.
I saw a video online.
I couldn't tell if it's a new one or an old one.
I think it's an old one.
So you tell me.
It was Pam Bondi talking about how many times Bill Clinton had been on the Lolita Express with Jeffrey Epstein.
Apparently, he hadn't been on the plane just a couple of times.
He'd been on there multiple times and traveled internationally with Epstein.
And that plane had a bed in it.
That's all you need to know.
And apparently they stayed friends for years, whereas Trump removed him from his life fairly early on.
So is that a new clip?
A new one or an old one?
What's all the 27s?
All right.
So that's out there.
So Trump has tried to fire the Federal Election Commission.
Ellen Weintraub.
But she says it's illegal and the president can't fire her.
We'll see.
But she was appointed by Bush, and apparently they can only be replaced if they resign or their term expires.
What?
Let me read that again.
According to legal experts, an FEC commissioner can only be replaced if they resign or their term expires.
Wait.
What?
Who the fuck has a job that they can't be fired from?
Who the fuck has a job that they can't be fired from unless they're elected?
And even if you're elected, you can be fucking fired.
You know, it's got to be an impeachment, but there's a process.
Are you telling me that there's somebody in our government who's in charge of the fucking elections who can't be fired?
Are you serious?
I hope I'm reading this wrong.
Do I have this wrong?
The most important person, the head of the spear for our entire democracy, can't be fired?
Oh my God.
You think that the well of corruption and badness is deep?
I've never seen anything like that.
Have you?
Have you ever heard of somebody who can't be fired?
For any reason?
That can't be right.
There must be...
Everybody could be fired for cause, right?
But apparently not, according to legal experts.
Wow.
The Daily Mail has a story that looks fake to me.
They're saying that there's unconfirmed plans that Trump's trying to end the Ukraine war in 100 days.
And he wants to get a ceasefire by April 20th.
And the deal would freeze Russia's place.
They get to keep what they have.
Ukraine would not join NATO. And that would be the deal.
Now, I guess this comes from a sketchy source.
And then the Daily Mail picked it up.
So it's two sketchy sources.
The Daily Mail is not full propaganda.
But it's not right 100% of the time either.
You know, like most things.
So I don't think this is anything but maybe a test balloon.
My best guess is that it's a way for the government to float an idea to see what people think of it.
So as an idea of floating test balloon, it's a good one.
But I don't think it's a real story.
Feels like just testing out the water.
We'll see.
So, Senator Fetterman has weighed in on the RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard nominations, and he will not vote for them.
So, he will not vote for either Gabbard or Kennedy.
Now, we don't absolutely need his vote, because Republicans can get it through if they're all together.
But, I was...
I was amused by Nicole Shanahan's reply to the ex-post about this.
I'll just paraphrase.
She said it better, but here's just my summary.
The Fetterman is a slob who wears gym clothes and doesn't go to the gym.
He's a slob who wears gym clothes all day and doesn't go to the gym.
In other words, health is not high on his list.
All right.
So here's somebody who apparently He doesn't have any appreciation for good human health.
Or he would act like it.
He'd go to the gym, he'd lose weight, he'd eat right.
He acts like he has no appreciation for the biggest issue in the whole country, which is our kids have chronic diseases and they'll have no good life.
That's a pretty big problem.
And he's against it.
Separately, Fetterman also said that he thought the Democrats don't have much chance of winning men back.
Because he said he's been warning about it, and that the Democrats have become sort of the party of whiny women, and that not only were white males leaving the Democrat Party, but black men, Hispanic men, and it's a pretty broad and obvious change.
But the interesting thing is he thinks they can't get it back, meaning that Fetterman believes he is in the party.
That's anti-men.
That would be according to all the men who change sides, because they want to be on the side that's not anti-men.
DEI is anti-men.
What do we got here?
Okay, so Ellen Weintraub, the head of the FEC that Trump is trying to get rid of, She once was in private practice at Perkins Coy.
So if you recommend, if you understand Perkins Coy, that's like the heart of the Democrat legal dirty tricks.
Well, I won't call them that.
I'll just say they're the legal arm of the Democrats, where much has been done that Republicans don't like.
So we can see why Trump's getting rid of her.
It makes sense.
But let me close on Fetterman.
So Fetterman knows that he's on the anti-male team.
And he stays there.
Now, if he tried to become a Republican, I'm sorry, that door is very closed right now.
You're not going to become a Republican.
If you're turning down Kennedy, you're dead.
I mean, not physically dead.
You're done as a political entity that anybody on the Republican side is going to care about.
So you're a piece of shit from my perspective.
And you should expect that Scott Pressler is coming for your job.
Not to take the job, but to make sure that there are more Republicans registered in Pennsylvania.
And he said so, by the way.
I'm not speculating.
Scott Pressler, Nicole Shanahan, they're going to take him out.
And I don't know if that means he'll be primaried, but that's what Nicole Shanahan promised, that she'd be primarying people who go the wrong direction on the Kennedy vote.
And Scott Pressler says it directly.
You know, we're coming after you, basically.
So Fetterman, I think his political fortunes are now over, because he just made an unrecoverable error.
Allegedly, According to Wired, Elon Musk's Doge is working on a chatbot.
So they're going to create a chatbot called GSAI, allegedly.
And it would be part of, you know, maybe some of it would be to analyze the complexities that Doge is looking into.
But some of it would be maybe a replacement for some of the functions of the government.
You know, if you had a really good AI. It could do a lot of stuff.
Now, I'm a skeptic because my own experience with trying to create an AI agent, even though it was last summer and a lot has changed, I don't believe AI can do that.
I don't believe AI can create an agent that can do general stuff that a human could do.
I don't think it's anywhere near it.
So the AI is super smart, but when you try to get it to do sort of the job of a person, it's...
You know, it hallucinates and it's hard to know when it's going to do it.
It can't look up data reliably.
So the only way it would work is if it's sort of an interface layer, but all of the real important work is just regular programming.
You know, just it initiates something that looks into a database that's not AI. So if it's the interface for things that are not AI, it could be great.
So I don't want to judge.
Obviously, let me just say the obvious.
The people who are working on this know a lot more than I do about AI. So if they think it can work, it would be kind of dumb for me to bet against it.
But it's not my understanding that it can work, unless it's just an interface to regular programming.
We'll see.
Someday it will work.
I don't think it's there yet.
All right.
You know we're going to talk about USAID. I've got more to say about that.
But Thomas Massey says...
If you're brand new, I'll just give you the quick update.
USAID is a $50 billion or whatever funded entity within the government that does things for the State Department, sometimes the CIA, sometimes the Pentagon.
This is the Mike Benz explanation of the world.
And it's been basically gutted by Doge for all the alleged waste and fraud.
The waste would be funding things that are not good for anybody.
That would be the claim.
But Thomas Massey says, I'm concerned that the House and Senate will fully fund USAID in March, just like we did in December, although he voted against it.
He said the argument from Republican leadership will be that they need Democrat votes to pass the omnibus to avoid a government shutdown.
Oh my God.
I hate how right he is.
So Massey's pretty good at seeing around corners and telling you what's coming.
How do we beat that?
Because the whole omnibus thing is essentially a criminal process.
It's a criminal process because it allows the people of Congress to not do their job and get tons of money for things that will help them get re-elected.
I don't know if it's illegal.
But certainly in intention and in a de facto way, it's just criminal.
Let me say it again.
The omnibus is when they put all of the spending in one big thing and you can just say yes or no.
But they put all kinds of crap in there and then they say, well, if you say no to the crap, you're the one who shut down the government and children will die, which is an exaggeration.
So, yeah, we have a system that guarantees that USAID will be fully funded.
Think about that.
We just nuked it, and the corrupt government is so advanced at this point, it's evolved almost to its own creature.
The corruption is self-healing.
We have a self-healing...
Corruption-designed machine.
If you take out the heart of the machine, the USAID, that might be the most important beating organ in the whole machine, completely removed, and in one month, it could be reinstated because it's a self-healing corrupt system.
And they'll just use the omnibus as the argument for why it must be refunded.
Now, if it's not done with the Omnibus, and I don't know what would stop it, they could do the same thing with onesies and twosies.
Well, but this one's important.
Well, you cut all the funding, but this one's important.
But this one's important.
And just try to wear down Marco Rubio and the State Department, which absorbed the USAID function.
Let me tell you, if you think USAID is defeated, not even close.
We're not even close to defeating it.
It's sort of like the Terminator.
You know, okay, good news.
We shot the Terminator.
Uh-oh, he's reforming.
He's self-healing.
So it's coming for you.
Did you know, according to Leslie Kazimovitz, I don't know if this is a good source or not, but it's a good example of the kind of news I'm seeing on social media.
I'll give you the following warning.
There will be claims about USAID funding that are not true.
Trump just reversed the Biden decision on plastic straws.
We're getting our plastic straws back.
Yes.
USAID's coming back, but so are plastic straws.
So it's a tie.
All right.
So according to Leslie Kazimovitz, and remember, the umbrella for this story and a lot of others is they might not be true.
There are going to be a whole bunch of claims about USAID funding that if you looked into it, it might mean not exactly what the claim is, but could be close.
But the claim is that USAID... In 2016, gave $310 million of taxpayer money to a Palestinian cement factory.
Well, now on the surface, you'd say to yourself, well, if you're going to have a modern country and you're going to develop, you're going to need some cement.
So maybe we funded one of the main things they needed to rebuild this good quality local cement.
I wonder where the cement went.
Well, maybe some of it went for factories, to build some factories, maybe some housing.
But maybe it's how they built their Hamas tunnels.
So the real concern is that no matter what our intentions were, it may have been just, you know, siphoned off and taken to build.
Not siphoned off, but they would have actually built the cement plant.
But the cement plant may have been, allegedly, some part of the tunnel building.
$310 million.
Do you think we got our money's worth there?
I don't know.
That one feels a little too on the nose, doesn't it?
Remember I tell you the one way to spot fake news quickly is it's too perfect.
What would be the most perfect story?
Somebody could make up about USAID. The most perfect story would be it built the Hamas tunnels.
Now, it might have.
I'm not saying it didn't happen.
I'm saying, oh boy, is that one right on the nose.
So, if you have to bet on it, I don't know if it's a safe bet.
It's a little too clean.
So, just be aware that when you hear these stories that are a little...
Too perfect?
There may be a reason they're too perfect.
But they also might be true, so it's hard to say.
Yesterday I posted on X that it seems to me that maybe we could close the entire budget gap, the deficit, the entire thing, just by getting rid of fraud.
And that's a big claim, right?
Because we're talking about $2 trillion.
So I honestly think...
That if we got rid of all fraud in all forms of the government, from military to Medicare fraud to everything else, we might close the entire gap.
And I thought, well, you know, it's just how it feels.
It's not really, I haven't done the math.
But Elon Musk saw that comment that I made, and he modified it.
In the comments, he said that maybe getting rid of fraud would close one-third to one-half of the deficit.
One half of the deficit is a trillion dollars.
A trillion dollars per year.
Not a trillion dollars over many years.
One year.
Now, that's the person who's looked into it the closest.
He knows more than any of us now about what he's found and maybe even what he's likely to find.
He thinks there might be a trillion dollars of something that we might call waste or fraud.
I think that's right.
I think it's a trillion.
At least.
You know, I thought it was two.
But I'm going to go with his estimate because he's closer to it.
Here are some examples.
Jesse Waters had a good rundown on some of the examples of things that USAID was doing.
Now, here's the problem.
And I'll get into this in more detail.
The fake news, the corporate news, It was reporting that USAID is a charitable organization doing all kinds of good things all over the world and that defunding it means that people will die by the millions.
So people will die.
So when Jesse and other people give the list of the fake-looking wastes of money, and I'm going to list them in a moment, you might say to yourself, oh, If we get rid of the fake ones, then all we'll have left is the real charity, and maybe the real charity makes sense, some people would say.
Now, the fake news is covering this like it's a charity being removed story.
The real news, the MAGA Republican version of what's happening, is that USAID has always been a fake organization that is designed to overthrow other countries.
And also control the United States.
So those are completely different stories.
But here's what's interesting.
The fake news is pretending like there's only one version of the narrative.
They're not even telling you that the other narrative is wrong.
They're just ignoring it.
What's that tell you?
If they told you that the narrative that it's, you know, a CIA front...
If they told you that was not true, and they said why, and they showed their work, well, then maybe you could compare their version with what other sources are saying.
And maybe make up your own mind.
But they're acting like there's only one narrative.
They're actually ignoring the main claim.
And the main claim is the biggest scandal in American history.
You know, maybe since...
I don't know, maybe since slavery.
But it's the biggest story I've ever seen since I've been alive.
Would you agree?
I mean, wars are big in their own way, so you can't ignore wars.
But in terms of a scandal, this is the biggest one I've ever seen by a thousand.
This is not even close to anything I've ever seen.
This is enormous.
That's one narrative.
Why can they ignore what half of the country thinks is true and is digging into the details of it and completely coming up to speed?
They're just ignoring it.
Now, that tells you that they're fake news.
So if you're wondering, are they fake news?
Yes.
Turns out they are.
Here are some of the things Jesse Waters says they funded.
$6 million for tourism in Egypt.
Because Egypt certainly couldn't do any tourism without an extra $6 million.
You know, as Jesse points out, they have pyramids.
They have pyramids.
You'd be lucky if you could stop people from going there.
I mean, you'd have to close the border to stop all the people who want to go in there to look at the pyramids.
The one thing they don't need...
Some help with becoming a tourist destination.
Because, again, they've got pyramids.
They have pyramids.
All right.
$2 million to help the British Broadcasting Company value the diversity of Libyan society.
I didn't make that up.
We're paying the BBC, British entity, how to value the diversity of Libyan society.
Now that can't be real.
How is that real?
$1 million for a gay group in Armenia.
What?
What?
$20 million for Iraqi Sesame Street.
Okay.
$2 million for trans surgeries in Guatemala.
$235 million to the National Democratic Institute.
Hmm.
Well.
Well, that sounds fine, right?
We like democracy.
Sounds like that's what they're working on.
It's right in the name.
So $235 million.
But a lot of that money went to executive compensation.
So the real meaning of all this funding is everything about the government funding seems to be a way for Democrats to get a payday and some anti-Trump.
Republicans.
They all seem to have one foot in some form of either USAID or somebody that USAID funds or something also an NGO. I saw an estimate from Alex Jones that there are 1.5 million NGOs, but 1.1 million of them are left-leaning.
Is that possible?
Somebody in the comments said 55,000.
At the very least, there are thousands, thousands of these entities.
They get funded by our government, your taxpayers, your tax money.
And it seems to be mostly for controlling America, controlling other countries, and for people to get paychecks so that they can get this easy funding from your money.
Basically, it's just a transfer of wealth to Democrats.
The wealthy Democrats, not even the poor Democrats.
That's what it looks like.
Well, according to Grok, and I should warn you that all of the AIs are not up to date on this story.
They're up to date on what people are saying, but your AIs are going to tell you there's no evidence that the CIA has anything to do with the USAID. That's what your AI will tell you.
But Grok tells me that all the spending of USAID is transparent.
It's transparent, so everybody could have always seen it.
And that the GAO, Government Accounting Office, can audit it.
So don't worry about the spending being wrong, because you can see it.
It's transparent.
You know the names of the places it's going to.
And you also know that there's an auditing function.
So it could get audited by the government to make sure they're not doing anything wrong.
So are you good with that?
I hope you're good with it because I'm starting an NGO. So the name of my NGO is going to be called America Doing Awesome Things for Gay Climate Scientists and Democracy.
Now that sounds like a joke, but it's not very far from the name of the other NGOs.
So the first thing you do is put a name on your NGO. And a primary purpose that looks like it's good.
And then you hide behind that goodness and do all your evil behind it.
Because you can get your paycheck, you can do your influence peddling.
But as long as people come after you, so if you come after me after I get funded for my America Doing Awesome Things for Gay Climate Scientists and Democracy, I'm going to say, whoa, oh, look who's coming after me.
Apparently you don't like gay people.
You're a bigot?
Uh-huh.
And you're anti-science, because why else would you be coming after me for trying to fund climate scientists?
So you're anti-scientist, you're anti-gay, you're opposed to democracy?
I mean, all those things are right in the title of my NGO, so clearly I'm doing good work, and you're some kind of a bigoted piece of crap science denier.
Get out of here.
Get out of here.
And I'm going to tell all the other Democrats to stay away from you.
God, you're such a terrible person.
You're awful.
How can you even come after me when I'm so virtuous?
Just look at the name of my NGO. It's right there in the name.
All right.
So there's that.
Also, according to the Washington Examiner, Taxpayers also funded Chinese research.
Representative Claudia Tenney, Republican, she's got a bill she's introducing to stop funding our adversaries.
Now, you would think that's something we weren't doing.
Your common sense would say, we're not funding any adversaries.
What are you talking about?
How can it possibly be true?
There were funding adversaries.
What?
But between 2015 and 2021, the U.S. provided $29 million directly to Chinese entities for research and development.
I think that included Wuhan.
These are real things, I think.
Now remember, remember the umbrella caution?
There are going to be claims that aren't true.
And I'm not sure I'll know which ones are not true.
But the general thrust of it is still the same.
Directionally, these are largely fake things.
Now, is it true that it also does good things, such as helping countries battle AIDS? Yes.
That's called a cover.
The reason that they do good things is so you can't pull their funding.
They're doing good things.
The government, let's say the foreign government that allows USAID-funded things in, probably can't handle the problems themselves, such as an AIDS epidemic or any other major problem that a smaller country can't handle.
We come in and say, we can handle that.
And the government says, well, we can't do it ourselves, and it is destroying our country, so yeah, come on in.
And then you can't kill it.
Because if you try to kill the funding, You're going to say that you killed people with AIDS. Elon Musk just posted, I love Donald Trump as much as a straight man can love another man.
Oh God, he likes causing trouble.
All right.
So, let's see, what else is...
So, CNN says the concern about these big government payouts to...
To media organizations, such as Politico, are fake.
So, no.
The media is telling you that if you think the media is taking money to change their reporting, that's fake, people.
That's just fake.
And the example they give is that Politico, which has two, I think, two main businesses.
One is Politico, the publication.
But another one is a very expensive subscription.
That is extra data and things that are not in their public Politico thing.
And the claim was that $8 million have flowed into the pro part of the Politico, not the publication, and that it came from not just USAID, but maybe a bunch of entities that are also NGOs and kind of operate the same.
So, do you think that...
$8 million of subscriptions?
Do you think that was an appropriate expense for all kinds of different parts of the government?
They all needed a subscription to this thing?
Does that sound real to you?
Now, Politico is trying to make the distinction that funding, not funding, but let's say buying a bunch of subscriptions to one part of their business has no influence on their coverage in the other part of the business.
That's for the fucking stupid people.
Let me tell you how you can bribe people.
Oh, how many lines of business do you have?
Two.
Well, we'd like to influence one of those lines of business.
Okay, great.
We'll give you millions of dollars if you'll do with that line of business what we want you to.
Excellent.
You got a deal.
But can you do us a favor?
Don't write the checks.
To something that looks like that line of business that you want us to influence.
Instead, could you write it to the other line of business so it looks like you're just buying a regular product like anybody would?
So, I'm not saying that's what happened.
I'm just saying that's exactly what it looks like happened.
There's no such thing as people who are uninfluenced by money.
Millions of dollars.
Yeah, no influence at all.
Millions of dollars.
Nobody believes that.
And as I read, Ron Paul thinks that basically all of the media is influenced by government spending that's channeled through this and that, so it gets there.
Well, maybe.
Brian Stelter called the claim that Politico is receiving government subsidies, quote, rampant right-wing misinformation.
Well, technically he's correct.
Here's what he didn't say.
But the parent company of Politico is making millions of dollars, and it doesn't seem like that number could be supported by the fact that people like subscriptions to your pro service.
That would be the better frame.
All right.
If you're getting lost in all this stuff because the Doge thing is getting complicated, I would recommend that you listen to the explainers.
One difference from 2016 till now, Is that the right-leaning part of the world has developed these incredible explainers.
People who simply know enough that they can tell you what's really happening that's different from what the news is telling you.
So some of them, of course, Mike Benz is the tip of the spear on this particular topic.
But I would listen to Mike Cernovich, who digs into it deeper than most and explains it better.
Glenn Greenwald, Brett Weinstein.
And look at podcasts, not the news.
The podcasts are where you get closest to the truth in this case, and the good explainers are the ones that can help you.
So the bad explainers aren't going to give you anything.
You've got to listen to the good explainers that I just explained.
So here's an example.
Brett Weinstein on Joe Rogan.
I'm going to read the whole thing.
I just like the way he said it.
He said, quote, as I was watching the confirmation hearings, my sense was that Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders were dinosaurs who do not understand that the earth has just been hit from outer space and that they don't live in the world that they're used to, that their corruption was immediately apparent and they're not used to that.
They're used to having a whole phony journalistic layer that covers for them and that layer is gone and the American public is awake and they're angry.
And rightfully so.
And now it looks like, now look at Bernie Sanders, and you can see the same guy going after Bobby Kennedy, like, dude, I just went through COVID. I see Bernie Sanders, and I see him reading from a script that is no longer relevant to the movie that we're watching.
That's a good description.
That's a good description.
Yes.
If you look at the politicians that are prairie-dogging, The ones who've decided that they're going to be really noisy about USAID being cut and about the DOGE, those are all the corrupt ones.
By accident, this wasn't what anybody was trying to do, but by accident, by poking the right part of the government, it revealed all of the turds.
Everybody who is corrupt, in my opinion, is just an opinion.
They're the ones that are the loudest.
If you see Jamie Raskin and Schumer and Warren and Sanders and Adam Schiff, those are all the designated liars.
They're the ones who specifically come out when they're selling bullshit.
They don't bring them out when the truth can handle itself.
If the problem is the truth, then the news can handle it.
The news will just say, oh, fact check, this is true.
But when the news can't handle it because it's such a big lie that even the news can't go there, they bring out the same cast of characters.
Yeah, and Letitia James is obviously part of the corruption.
She's the lawfare queen.
So that's the world we're living in.
So this is from Mike Cernovich, who was on Jesse Kelly's show.
And he said that USAID funds diversity.
The money hits a non-profit.
So diversity, everybody loves that, right?
So you fund the diversity so that you've got to cover.
And then the money hits the non-profit that's going to do something for diversity.
And some shitlib in D.C. pays himself or herself half a million dollars.
Power couples are pulling in millions of dollars per year.
Stealing from you.
I believe that is a perfect explanation of some large part of what's happening.
That Democrats have figured out, wait a minute, if 98% of the people in USAID are Democrats, and I'm a Democrat, and they've got all this money, and they give it out to all kinds of sketchy people all the time, for sketchy reasons.
All I need is to say I'm going to do something that sounds important, like fix diversity.
Then what are they going to do?
If you're a USAID and somebody says, I'm going to work on diversity, don't you say, oh yeah, good, good, let's do that.
So it basically turns out a lot of this is, I think, literally just scam.
It's hard to know because there might be some legitimate ones they got in the mix.
But it does look like mostly it's designed as a scam.
At least that's the way it operates.
It's a de facto criminal enterprise.
De facto.
Might not actually be illegal.
Marco Rubio, now head of the State Department, where USAID got rolled in.
So after it got gutted, what's left of it got rolled under the State Department.
So Rubio's in charge of that.
And he's going to reduce the staff of USAID from about 10,000.
To 294. Which is probably about 200 people too many, but I'll take what I can get.
So this is very Musk-like.
It just feels like a lot of what he did with Twitter.
Your common sense, which wouldn't work in this case, told you, okay, Twitter might have 20% more people than they need.
Nope.
They had 90% more people than they needed.
Probably Maybe 80 or 75%.
And that was the right number because X has apparently turned cash positive.
Can you believe that?
I think that's true.
I'll take a fact check on that.
But I saw this morning just in passing, somebody said that X is now beyond break-even, that they're cash positive.
Is that still true?
I hope so.
Anyway.
So Mike Benz is now being attacked by the same media that may be benefiting from these corrupt payments from USAID and similar NGOs.
So would you be surprised to know that the Washington Post not only went after that Doge guy, but he already did a hit piece on Mike Benz, and he says that a whole bunch of the media has contacted him.
Asking him to comment because they're also working on hit pieces.
Apparently, it took him a while.
Were you all wondering, why hasn't Mike Benz been taken out by the deep state yet?
I hate to say it, but I've been wondering that for a long time.
And the only thing I can think of is that he had not penetrated the bubble yet.
Meaning that as long as they had a good bubble, so that nobody in their base ever heard any Mike Benz argument.
And by the way, I tested this with my smartest Democrat friend a while back.
I said, all right, just do me a favor.
Just listen to one person.
Just listen to Mike Benz, figure out what he's saying about things, and then you'll finally maybe catch up to a big part of what the political right knows.
And my friend looked at one of his videos, dismissed it as, I don't know, a troll or something, and would never look at another one.
So that's probably what happened with any other Democrat who tried looking.
The Mike Benz view of reality is so disturbing that if you're not already leaning in that direction, it'll just make your head explode.
And your brain won't be able to process how completely wrong your impression of the world you live in has been.
Here's the most...
Provocative thing that Ben said just on a podcast, I think, yesterday.
He said there's no such thing as domestic policy.
Just listen to that.
There's no such thing as domestic policy.
Everything that you think is domestic policy is fake.
Meaning that it's designed to control other countries or to control our own country to keep a populist out of office.
Now, when I heard that, my first thought was, well, that's not true.
Because what about the emphasis the government has on DEI before Trump?
And now we know that DEI is what we introduced to a country we're trying to destabilize.
Because if you can get them to really be mad about racial division, which is what DEI gets you, you can weaponize them and put them on the streets and have them...
Rebel against the government.
But what about climate change?
I mean, that's obviously domestic policy.
We want to save our lives and make sure we're doing the right thing, right?
Well, except that one of the ways you destabilize another country is to inject climate change into that other country, say it's the most important thing, and if the leaders aren't working on it, well, they've got to be replaced.
And so it goes.
That everything you think was a domestic policy is really a way to make sure that populists like Trump don't get power.
Because the populists will rip into all that stuff.
What about trans rights?
Were you all confused about why trans rights suddenly became the only thing we were talking about for a long time?
Like, how is that even possible?
Like, even if you agree or disagree...
With any of the topics under the trans stuff, nobody thought it should have been the top national talking point.
That can't be natural.
Do you know what we do when we try to destabilize other countries?
We fund pro-trans things in those countries.
Because the trans people can get the LGBTQs on board and suddenly they all hate their leadership.
Now, doesn't that sound exactly like...
What's happening in this country?
It does.
So let's talk more about that.
So I spent some time this morning, so that you didn't need to, on Grok.
So Grok is the AI I used.
And I said to myself, I want to use the most unbiased one, because I'm going to ask some questions that I know will be censored on the other ones.
So this is what Grok said.
So the first thing I asked it was about this.
Smith-Munt Act of 1948. I'll bet most of you have heard of that, right?
It's something that Democrats have no idea about.
So the Smith-Munt Act allowed our CIA or whatever it was at the time to do propaganda broadcasts in other countries.
So we could literally try to brainwash other countries, but it was very carefully, you know, walled so they couldn't do that in America.
Now the The conservative story, or the MAGA story, is that when Obama came in office, he changed the part about being able to do it domestically.
So the purpose of it, and nobody argues that this is the purpose, so both sides would agree this is the purpose.
The purpose of sending media to other countries is to control their minds.
It's brainwashing, it's propaganda, and nobody argues that.
So that part, nobody argues.
Because we're okay propagandizing other countries.
You know, they do it to us, we do it to them.
But the MAGA people would say, yes, but that all stopped.
That all stopped when Obama said you can also use that same material that was used to propagandize other countries.
You can now use it internally.
So I asked Grok if that's true.
And he said, no, that's not true.
Here's what Grok says.
The only change that was made was that if you wanted to get some of that external propaganda for research, just for research, you could request it and it would not be denied to you.
That's what Grok says.
Grok is the most, I think, The most or the least censored AI. Grok says that's bullshit.
Grok says that nothing like that happened.
There was no authorization for the CIA to brainwash Americans.
That didn't happen.
The only thing they did was a little technical change that allowed somebody to request something if they wanted to do some research.
Do you believe that?
I don't know.
I'm going to say, I don't know.
I don't think that the Smith-Munt Act is terribly important to what we're seeing today.
In other words, you can see everything we're seeing, whether or not the Smith-Munt Act did or did not do anything.
So I think maybe it's just a distraction, not an intentional distraction, but rather a distraction to spend much time thinking about it.
Because we could argue all day whether that act has any difference, but we could also just look at the difference.
We could just look at what people are doing, and that's probably all you need.
So the CIA specifically would be not allowed to use that stuff, but what about an NGO? Do you think an NGO, a non-government organization that gets funded by the government, do you think it could look at some of the propaganda and then repurpose it for the United States?
Because I don't think anything says that...
A non-CIA entity can't do it.
Do you think the CIA could ask somebody else to do it for them?
Do you think they could talk to the Washington Post?
I'll just use them as an example.
It's not an accusation.
Just an example.
Could the CIA say, hey, I'm having lunch with a journalist.
And you know, there's this interesting story happening over in Europe right now.
And there might be some...
Some application in the United States.
Maybe the U.S. market would like this story too.
And then it's not really the CIA that's using it to propagandize.
They're just having lunch.
It's just a conversation.
It's just lunch.
So if you have lunch with your favorite journalist and you happen to know about a story that's kind of big in another country, maybe they'd be interested in looking at that story and how it plays out in this country.
I think if we're looking at the technical language of the law and the Smith-Munt Act and what it does do and what it doesn't do and how it was revised, probably we're just going down the rabbit hole for no reason.
Because you don't even need to be in that hole.
Everything that you care about, know about, everything that matters, it can all be deduced without any reference to the Smith-Munt Act.
Because the one thing we can all be sure of is that Any entity in the United States could get around that without any effort.
It basically has no teeth.
Because there's nothing that would stop me from, let's say, looking at some media in another country and saying, oh, I think I'll say that on social media because that looked good to me.
That's not illegal.
I can do it.
I'm just a citizen.
I just saw some stuff and I thought it'd be a good story.
So it couldn't possibly be true that Smith-Mont...
Munt either caused anything or prevented anything.
It would be far more reasonable to say it doesn't do anything.
It's like you can forget that whole story.
From the MAGA perspective, it kind of gave some meat to a belief, but you don't need it.
You got plenty.
All right, so that's the first thing I found.
Now, also, you might know that Operation Mockingbird...
Whereas the CIA, literally, in the 50s and 60s, they had favored news entities and journalists that they influenced, including the Washington Post and the New York Times.
Well, they were implicated.
So Grok doesn't say they were guilty.
Grok says they were implicated.
And it remains to be seen.
According to Grok, whether they were really guilty of that.
But I think most of us believe that Operation Mockingbird was real.
And so that means in my lifetime, in my lifetime, the 60s, the CIA was managing our news.
And they don't have to manage every news entity, because if you get the Washington Post and the New York Times, everybody else just follows them.
They're called the newsmakers, meaning that until it's in one of those entities, at least in the 60s, it wasn't really news.
So if a local newspaper had a big story, nobody cared.
It didn't go anywhere.
It has to be in the New York Times or the Washington Post in those days.
That was before, you know, Internet.
So allegedly, there was this church committee in the 70s that exposed this...
This evil.
And then it was ended.
Do you think it was ended because it became illegal?
Let's go back to lunch, shall we?
Hey, favorite journalist who works for the Washington Post, would you like to have lunch?
I work for the CIA, and I know lots of things that maybe off the record you'd like to know too.
All right, well, it's just lunch.
So let's have lunch.
All right, here's a scoop.
Let me tell you this scoop.
And they give him a real scoop, and the journalist says, wow, that was worth it.
I'm glad I went to lunch with that guy.
And then maybe later, you know, he needs some context on the story, and he contacts that CIA guy and says, hey, you know, I'm doing a story on this.
Do you have any context?
And the CIA guy adds it, makes his story better.
Journalist is now killing it.
He's got two great stories thanks to the CIA contact.
And then there's another lunch.
The CIA contact says, you know what?
God, this terrible Trump guy.
Wow.
Yeah, I don't know what the world's going to do with this Trump, Trump, Trump guy trying to break all of our democracy and doing racist things.
What's your newspaper doing about Trump?
Well, I don't know.
I mean, I don't have any stories about that.
Yeah, you really should think about it.
Because it really is the biggest story, in my opinion.
I mean, I'm not telling you any CIA stuff, and of course the CIA can't tell you to do it, but wow, it's the biggest story.
How are you missing that?
And the next thing you know, the journalist does not believe that they have been influenced by the CIA. They just think they have a good idea for a story.
Now, this is just an example, of course.
But if you think that the law, or any kind of law, like the church committee or whatever they found and whatever law changed, if you think the law can prevent somebody from having lunch, what world do you live in?
All they need is a conversation.
You don't think that the CIA is trained in how to manipulate somebody into doing what they want?
That's exactly what they're trained to do.
Not just in America, but to anybody.
If you sit down with somebody who's trained to persuade you, you're going to leave that meeting a little bit persuaded.
So you don't really need to do anything illegal.
It's just lunch.
Just lunch.
What that?
Okay, that's bad.
All right.
So...
I would ignore the fact that there were any legal changes about what the CIA can or cannot do.
Sometimes it's the CIA, sometimes it's the State Department, sometimes it's the Pentagon.
So when I say the CIA did this or that, what I mean is any of those entities, because they're sort of joined at the hip for a lot of stuff.
So let me tell you what the MAGA belief is, and then we'll see how connected to reality is.
So the mega belief is that the CIA developed a bunch of tools, allegedly for influencing other countries.
But they ended up turning those tools on the populist movement of Trump because stopping populists in other countries was mainly what they did.
And stopping a Trump populist movement was apparently, some say, allegedly.
What they did next.
Now, we know that there was some effort to censor Americans by controlling foreign entities.
So if a foreign fake fact checker kept saying that X or something was fake, well, then the European countries could say, well, according to our fake fact checker that's paid by USAID, just as an example, I don't know if they are, according to the fake fact checkers, this one Elon Musk-owned platform is just full of lies and Nazis.
So I guess we can just ban it, which would put X in a business.
So we do know that our own government intentionally, not by accident, got a whole bunch of fake entities in other countries that we funded to do things that we couldn't do legally in this country.
It might have been technically legal, but certainly a violation of everything we care about constitutionally.
So we know that's true.
So here are the things we know are true.
I'm not going to read that comment, but it's very funny.
The things we know are true are that our own government has done a bunch of color revolutions in other countries.
Now, if you don't know what a color revolution is, it's because a lot of these coups They're usually instigated by America.
They often have a color associated with them.
Not always.
Sometimes there'll be some other label.
But let me just give you an example of some color revolutions.
Now, I should tell you that the way they do the color revolution is they first do capacity building.
This is also Mike Benn's narrative.
The capacity building means we bribe Or somehow get control of various things within the country we're targeting.
So if we could, let's say, bribe or control their media, or any part of it, that'd be a big part of it.
If we can control union heads, they could tell the unions what to do, that'd be a big part of it.
If we could control the universities, so we're educating the young people to be against their own government and for us.
And you would try to control minority groups.
Because they're the ones most likely to say, hey, the government's not serving us, we better overthrow it.
So, if you saw USAID going into a country, and even if they said, oh, we're going to help you with your terrible problems, it is verified that in a number of cases, some would say not 100%, Mike Benz might say 100%, but that the CIA rides on the charity.
To get into the country and then do its CIA thing.
And that all of the charities are basically covered for that activity because we don't do anything for another country unless it has a domestic purpose.
And the domestic purpose is controlling other countries.
So that's the claim.
So this is the narrative on the right.
So if somebody were running a color revolution in the United States, We know what to look for, and I'll tell you that in a minute.
But here are some of the examples.
In 2000, Serbia had a bulldozer revolution, so they didn't have a color yet.
The colors came later.
There was a rose revolution in Georgia 2003. There was an orange revolution in Ukraine in 2004. There was a tulip resolution in Kyrgyzstan 2005. Cedar revolution in Lebanon 2005. Jeans revolution Belarus 2006. Saffron revolution Myanmar 2007. Green movement Iran 2009. Velvet revolution Armenia 2018. Some say that Euromaiden, which is also Ukraine, That came later.
The Arab Spring and Hong Kong protests and Belarus protests are sometimes also labeled as color revolutions.
That's according to Grok.
So this comes from Grok.
Now, did you know how many there were?
That's kind of a lot.
And I think this is not a complete list.
I think maybe it's just, you know, the bigger countries we've all heard of.
So here are the things we know for sure.
There have been decades in which the CIA controlled Americans by brainwashing us through the media.
That's not questioned by anybody.
Left, right, we all agree on that.
Some say it stopped happening, but they are morons.
They are morons.
There's no way to stop that from happening domestically.
There's no way.
When I watch a movie like Top Gun, It's all rah-rah, Americans are good at flying planes.
I don't think that happens by itself.
I think maybe Tom Cruise makes amazing movies and he has the power to do any movie he wants.
And that was an obvious sequel.
But, I don't know.
Do you think that's totally without any influence by our government?
I don't know.
I have no evidence that it is, but it's exactly what they do.
So, I don't know.
Well, now let's go to 2016. Tie it all together.
Trump wins unexpectedly.
How did Trump win unexpectedly?
Because the bad guys failed to believe it was true there was such a thing as shy Trump supporters.
That's right.
The smartest people in our government, you know, the spooks and the spies and the FBI and all the smart politicians, they all believed it wasn't real.
When people like me were saying, you know what's coming, right?
You know that you've made it impossible to say out loud who you support.
And you know it's so bad, you can't even tell your spouse.
And you know it's so bad that if a pollster calls and you do support Trump, you're not going to take the call.
And you know it's so bad, you might be lying to your own spouse about who you support.
Now, that's what they missed.
Now, I didn't miss it.
I was saying it almost every day.
Almost every day, I said, you got to watch out.
Shy Trump supporters.
It's way bigger than you think.
And there's a logical, obvious reason for it, because you've made it impossible to go public with your beliefs.
And so sure enough, Trump wins unexpectedly.
And then what do you think happened?
So one of the tricks that the color revolutions use is to say that Russia...
Or somebody else is behind who is in office now.
So you can get a revolution going if you can say, oh, the current leader is a Russian puppet.
See where this is going?
What was the main attack on Trump?
Literally that he was a Russian puppet.
This is textbook.
This is guaranteed every time.
If the America tries to overthrow a populist, The first thing they say is, that's not a populist.
That's a Russian puppet.
And watch how hard they've pushed on the Russian puppet thing.
And now, as I was saying, the prairie dogs, the people who have exposed themselves as being part of the corrupt machine, they were the ones pushing it.
Hillary Clinton, to this day, is pushing the Russia puppet thing about Trump.
It's not an accident.
If all they wanted to do was say there's bad things about Trump, you would just say a million different things.
But the fact that they converged on a whole made-up Russia puppet thing, that's textbook 100% indication that they turned their external tools internally.
It's not proof, but it would be the biggest fucking coincidence in the world.
Especially since it wasn't true.
If it was true, then you'd just say, well, it was just true.
But they made it up, and we know that.
They made it up.
And then, let's see.
What about the capacity building?
If we were doing capacity building in other places, we would fund things like universities.
Huh.
Look at our universities.
Full of leftist anti-populists.
Look at our media.
Huh.
The media seems completely controlled, just like we would do to another country if we wanted to take it over.
How about racial groups?
Black Lives Matter.
Well, suddenly we can make a story out of this George Floyd thing that, if it had been based on the facts, would have been no story at all.
But if you control the media, you can turn the George Floyd story into a story about rampant...
How about Antifa?
And by the way, BLM was funded by USAID. Did you know that?
What about Antifa?
Well, I don't know where they came from, but they disappeared as soon as Trump was out of office.
And given that they're supposed to be anarchists, they should be just as mad at Biden as they would have been at Trump.
They're anarchists.
Are you telling me they're anarchists like Democrats?
Oh, that's Joe Biden?
Yeah, that's fine.
But you're an anarchist.
Yeah, yeah.
But only when Trump's in office.
Right?
None of this ever made sense.
It's obviously external.
What about the Charlottesville op?
To me, I think it's so obvious that the Charlottesville thing was a government op.
It's exactly what you would do.
Exactly what you do to overthrow another country.
You would have some kind of event that showed the racial minorities that they better act because they're in trouble.
You better act.
You better get to the streets.
You better vote.
Well, that looks suspiciously right on point, doesn't it?
Now, what about the district attorneys?
Is there any history in which we tried to control the district attorneys in another country?
For the benefit of overthrowing the government.
Have you heard of Joe Biden and his trip to Ukraine, in which he said, if you don't get rid of that prosecutor, you can't have money from, was it from USAID? Somebody said it was, but I don't know if that's true.
So we watched.
The first thing Biden had to do is get rid of the prosecutor and get one in there that he liked.
What did the Democrats and USAID and George Soros fund?
They funded friendly DAs and attorney generals so that they could control prosecutions against who they wanted to prosecute, and then they engaged them, and then they went after Trump.
All the lawfare is the same thing we would do in another country to control their government.
We would, same thing, we would just find some fake reason.
That the DAs and the law has to go after them, and they would be our people.
The law would be basically bribed by us.
So that looks like exactly what's happening.
Letitia James is still yelling she's going to be suing Trump and trying to put him in jail.
She's still saying it.
The other thing you'd want to do is, if you're taking over another country, you'd want to weaponize their Department of Justice, like I just said.
But also, if they had an FBI or something like that, you'd want to control them too.
These are all the things that happen to us.
Now, is it a coincidence that the precise, exact tools that are used in other countries, and there's a long list of times we've used them, and they're well-established tools.
Nobody's doubting that those are the tools.
And also, nobody would doubt what I just described.
There was a Russia...
Collusion hoax there was.
Our universities, media, Black Lives Matter, Antifa are clearly fake.
I say the Charlottesville thing was fake because it never happened again.
I mean, that's your ultimate signal.
If that had been real, even after they all got in trouble, there would have been some second wave, third wave, even if it were smaller.
But no, it just disappeared.
Okay, it was never real.
The racists were real.
But obviously he was organized by some dark entity that was trying to mess with the United States.
So that's what we got going.
And of course we know that in the United States, DEI and climate change and trans rights became our big weapons to use against who?
Oh, it just turns out that all of those things can be used against the populist.
Huh.
Coincidence, right?
That the things that you said to yourself, why are these the top story?
They shouldn't be the top story, even if you think they're important.
It's all fake.
So when Mike Benz says there's no such thing as domestic policy, does that make sense now?
Even getting rid of Trump is for the benefit of our international policy.
And the things that they use to get rid of him, That you think are domestic policy are only to get rid of them.
Now, of course, there are people who agree with all these policies, but that's not why they're the big thing.
The reason anything that becomes a big thing is because somebody behind the curtain is pushing it.
It doesn't become a big thing on its own.
All right.
So...
Did I already talk about Thomas Massey, who says that USAID is gutted, but I can't tell if I thought about talking about it or talked about it.
So Thomas Massey was saying that the omnibus might just put USAID all back together.
I think I told you that, but yeah.
So that might happen.
So we have a self-healing criminal system.
There's also something called DRL, according to American thinker John.
Krondelsky is writing about this.
Here's what that is.
Something that started under Carter, DRL, and it has some human rights agenda in foreign policy.
And central and practically independent element of American foreign policy.
So the thinking is that that's just another one of these bullshit USAID things.
Like USAID, but different entity.
In other news, Iran has unveiled its first drone carrier.
So it's like an aircraft carrier, except for drones only.
And it's already launched.
So apparently Iran will now have the power to project drone swarms wherever they want.
I'd like to make a prediction about the fate of their new craft.
I'm going to give it six months before a catastrophic mechanical problem causes it to blow up in port.
Just a guess.
I think it might have a terrible, terrible mechanical problem that, hey, if they'd done a better job of building it, it wouldn't have happened.
But sadly, Probably because of their bad engineering.
They're going to make a carrier that just explodes on its own, really.
And we weren't even anywhere near it.
So don't look at us.
It just exploded on its own.
Israel?
I don't know what you're talking about.
No.
Sometimes things just explode on their own.
It's very bad.
Very bad luck.
But Trump is calling for, in terms of Iran, he wants a verified nuclear peace agreement.
And he's sort of talking like a president, in a good way.
He said, I would much prefer a verified nuclear peace agreement, which will let Iran peacefully grow and prosper.
I like how Trump always says, don't you want to prosper?
You know, that's his go-to for every adversarial country.
How about we just stop fighting each other and you just make a bunch of money?
How about that?
Because it's a pretty appealing concept to at least the public, if not the leaders.
He said, we don't want to be tough on Iran.
We don't want to be tough on anybody.
But they just can't have a nuclear bomb.
Now, I love the clarity of that.
I love the clarity.
You're not going to have a nuclear weapon.
When Israel says it, you know they mean it as well.
But you wonder if the United States might prevent them from doing what it might take to get rid of it, such as bunker-busting bombs on nuclear facilities in Iran.
So you don't necessarily think that Israel would have the green light to do what needs to be done in Iran.
But what if Trump says you do?
When Trump says, the one thing I'll guarantee is you're not going to get a nuclear weapon.
What that tells me is what Trump always says, which is everything's on the table.
So if Israel comes, let's say that nothing good happens with Iran and there's no progress and there's no talks and there's not going to be.
Do you think that Trump is going to stop Israel from taking out their nuclear facilities?
I don't.
I think they have a green light, but not yet.
We're going to see if Iran will just want to join the peaceful world.
You know, now that their proxies have been decimated, it's a whole different conversation.
So it's the best time in the world to be negotiating with Iran.
But I love the fact that we have the capability of bombing to shit all of their nuclear facilities, no matter how underground they are, and that it's green light.
So you can talk to us about stopping it yourself, or we'll stop it.
But the question of whether it will be stopped...
It's asked and answered.
See, this is important.
If you act like it's a negotiation, it will be one.
So the mistake would be to say, we need to have a negotiation about your nuclear program.
Nope, fail.
You failed before you started.
As soon as you say it's a negotiation, then they just drag it out and they fake it and nothing happens.
If you say you're not going to have a nuclear weapon, Everybody knows what that means.
It means that there's nothing we won't do to stop it.
Meaning we would nuke you.
I don't think that's going to happen.
But we'd nuke them before we let them have a nuclear weapon.
There's no limit to what we'd be willing to do.
Now, once you start your negotiations with, all right, this thing's not going to happen.
And now here's your decision.
So again, he's making him think past the sale.
The sale is, do you do nuclear or not?
He's saying, that's solved.
Now that we've solved, you're not going to have nuclear, because we have the power.
Notice how he does this?
Trump always tells people that he has the power, so you can stop thinking about it.
I've decided.
Wow, what's this?
Breaking news.
Egypt says it will work with partners to reconstruct Gaza without Palestinians leaving the Strip.
That sounds like a non-starter.
But back to Trump.
Look how good the technique is.
You could take this with yourself.
And I've used this, by the way.
I've used this technique a number of times.
And when I do, it always works.
It works every time.
You never let it be a discussion whether they can have the thing that you don't want them to have the thing.
You only tell them how they can lose it.
All right.
We're not talking about whether you can have it.
That's already settled.
We're going to talk about how you don't have it.
Do you not have it because you decided to play nice and then you make money, we make money, and everybody's happy?
Or did you decide to do it by losing your control over your own country while we just decimate your nuclear program and good luck picking up the pieces?
So I don't think anybody's ever put it in those terms before, where the question of whether you're going to have it is now taken off the table, that's asked and answered and settled.
You are not going to have it because we do have the power.
Trump has 100% of the ability to take it away from him.
So he just said you don't have it.
So now you only get to decide what path you take to not have it.
With bombs or no bombs?
That is good technique.
See, sometimes the things that he says are so ordinary looking that you don't realize how deep the technique is.
What he said, I don't believe anybody said it quite the way he said it, but also, this is important, because he's Trump, they think he would carry through with a threat.
If Biden says, I'd love to see Biden's language.
Maybe you can do a fact check on me.
Find me some quotes from Biden, and I'll bet you it says things like, we're going to work really hard to make sure Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon.
Fail.
Fail.
Complete failure.
We don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon.
Fail, fail, fail.
You've already killed yourself before you started.
If you say you're not going to have a nuclear weapon, now let's talk about how that happens.
Whole different narrative.
I mean, completely different frame.
And that's what Trump does better than anybody.
All right.
According to Popular Science, there's a company that's building underwater homes that you can live in for extended times.
They're for research, but maybe someday they'll be underwater homes.
All right, that's all I have.
I ran way too long.
I'm going to say hi to the locals, people privately.
I hope you like this.
It's really hard understanding all the various layers of things, but I think we're getting closer.
So, locals, I'm coming at you privately.
If you're on XOR, Rumble, or YouTube, thanks for joining.
Export Selection