Episode 1109 Scott Adams: Kamala Unleashing Her Demon Army to Hunt Republicans, Riots, Mind Control

Turn off your phones. Everybody turn off your ringers because it's time for coffee with Scott Adams. The best part of the day. Would you want that to be interrupted? No. No, you wouldn't. I understand that some people fast forward past this part. Do you know what you're missing? You're missing a cleverly engineered moment that is designed specifically to boost your oxytocin, your serotonin, your name it. Dopamine, all that stuff. And all you need. All you need is a cup of mugger glass, a tanker cellis or style, and a canteen jug of flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip. And it happens. Now go. Ah, yes. I can feel things coming around. Well, it appears that Kamala Harris has summoned her demon army from the bowels of hell. Some kind of a portal from hell opened up in Kenosha. I think there are other portals. One in Chicago, one in Seattle. And a lot of the people coming through the portal from hell, they look human. Ish. But if you've seen the mug shots, not exactly human, but similar. You know, they. They wear clothes. Got that in common. Two legs, two arms. Most of them. Not all of them. But yeah, the demon army seems to be causing a lot of trouble. I remember when people laughed when I said that the Biden and Kamala Harris campaign might be Satan inspired. And I said, you know, it's not real. I don't even believe in Satan. But look at all the coincidences. I feel as if every single day there's another coincidence that makes me shake my head and say, what kind of a world are we that we will believe anything we can talk ourselves into? Absolutely anything. So we'll see what happens with that. So some good news. Representative Ken Buck of Republican Colorado has joined with, I guess Rand Paul in calling for investigation of the funding. Yes, I said the funding of these various protesters. And I don't know if they're going to find something suspicious, but I would assume so because of, I think over 100 out of state people were arrested in Kenosha who traveled. They managed to get gasoline, and they bought gas masks that can't be that cheap. And they had supplies and fireworks and they had Molotov cocktails. And guns. There were a lot of guns that were confiscated from people who were arrested in Kenosha. A lot of guns. So these are people who could afford to travel out of state Bring stuff with them. They're getting funding from somewhere. And wouldn't it be good to know where that is? Wouldn't you like to know if that's coming from a foreign or domestic source or both? I'll bet you would. Now, let me start off by calming your nerves. Every now and then, I am reminded that what I can do for you, that is of greatest service is to talk you out of believing the hysteria that the fake news whips up. Now, I myself have predicted that Republicans would be hunted if Biden wins. And unfortunately, although Biden has not won, so we, we can't really say that I'm correct in that prediction. We can say that now. Everybody agrees that it looks like that. So anybody who has seen what's happened recently would certainly agree with the proposition that Trump supporters have been targeted for violence and there's nothing in the air that would change that. So why would there be less of it in the future if there's nothing really that would, that's popping up, that would be an obstacle to that. So we don't know if I'm right about that. I'll talk more about that in a little way, a little while. But let me, let me put this calming thought into your head. When people talk about a civil war and the fabric of society being ripped apart and all that, we're nowhere near that. We are not in the general zip code of a civil war, not in a real one, you know, where people take up arms and, you know, they protect territory and, you know, the government falls apart and all that. We are nowhere near that. Not only are we nowhere near it, we're not really approaching it either. We're not moving toward it. The things that you would need to have in place for that to happen, you'd have to have, number one, a leader on one of the teams. So there's obviously a leader of the established United States, but who's the leader of the rebel army. If you don't have, if you don't have a Fidel Castro, you don't have a Mao, if you don't have somebody who's a very effective, charismatic leader, you don't really get a civil war. Somebody's going to have to step up to be a leader. And it's obvious that nobody has those chops, no pun intended. So that would be one thing. That's not the only thing you could imagine that one would form later. So you might say to yourself, scott, Scott, Scott, they do have leaders. They'll just emerge later. But you would have seen it by now, if those leaders had some kind of charisma that was going to transmit to a wide group of people, the other thing you would look for is far more willingness, I guess in the general population. If you took the total number of people who are, you know, want to get violent. The antifa, the Black Lives Matter protesters, who are not the well intentioned ones, always like to separate. There are clearly good people with good intentions in just about any organization. That's just always true, left or right, and not everyone, but you know what I mean. It's a good general rule. So somebody says AOC and AOC doesn't want a violent revolution. If you have such a good job as AOC does, which is, I would argue that she's got a shot at the presidency. Not right away, but she's got lots of time. If you have a legitimate shot to become president of the United States, do you start an armed conflict with yourself at the lead? Not really. The first thing you do is just see if you can do it the easy way. Just see if you can get elected. Nobody dies. So we don't really have a leadership, we don't have a body of people. What we have is a whole series of coincidences which were bad coincidences, sort of a perfect storm. And I would argue that if you didn't have these exact perfectly provocative videos of the police shootings, if they weren't on video and there weren't this certain type of video that shows some of it but not all of it, you know, it could be a little misleading. If you didn't have that exact situation, you wouldn't have the same triggers. If you didn't have the coronavirus, you wouldn't have all this pent up energy, you wouldn't have people so available, they wouldn't be so angry, they wouldn't need some recreation, they'd be watching sports or traveling or doing something else. And even the masks, as I've said, causes people temporarily to be more bold than they would if they didn't wear masks. Masks make you bolder. It's just obvious. And of course it's an election year. So once the election is over, I would expect that the violin part would immediately transfer into what I call Coup 2. Now Coup II is the Democrat operative's plan, which is very clear. Now if you think this is some weird conspiracy theory thing, you haven't been paying attention because they've laid it out in public so very publicly. They've said no matter what Trump does, they're going to call the election illegitimate. Now, I suppose if they won outright, then they'd just be happy. But it doesn't look like it's shaping up that way and I think they know it. It looks like Trump is going to win by a pretty healthy margin, which could be historic, but it's at least going to be a healthy margin. It looks like at this point anything could change. So the coup to is where the political class will use primarily brainwashing techniques, which they've used so far, and their control of the media, etcetera, to create a situation where there's some kind of a peaceful overthrow of the government. No shots fired. Now can they pull that off? Well, they almost pulled off an impeachment. I mean, the Senate stopped it cold, but they got halfway there with an impeachment. They tried with Russian collusion, got pretty close and now they've signaled that they're going to question the outcome of the election, which is obvious because they've created a preference for mail in voting. You may have seen an article I just forwarded around where someone whose job it was to rig mail in voting told you how he did it and how easy it was and how easy it would be in the new situation. And still Democrats say it's perfectly safe. Even when the guy who rigs them and has rigged them and tells you exactly how to do it and how easy it is, even when he explains it, Democrats will look at you and say that doesn't happen. Just as weird, you know, two movies on one screen situation. So certainly they're setting up a situation where at least the Democrats won't believe that the result is believable if their team loses and they're softening us up with military grade psychological operations. I'll talk more about that in a minute. To make you think that maybe the military should remove a president, if the Democrats say collectively that there's something going on here. So it's pretty clear that they're setting up the, the machinery to remove President Trump if he wins. We'll see if that's successful. But that would be a non violent kind of attempt, which I think would also fail. It's just a little bit too transparent. I mean, everybody can see it. So it wouldn't be any kind of a weird surprise or anything. So that's where we are. But in terms of an armed conflict, there is so much firepower, literally firepower in the suburbs that as soon as the protesters leave their little defined spaces and they go into any kind of a wider geography, it's gonna, there will be bloodshed, but it won't be some massive civil war. So don't worry about a civil war. We're not. We're not on the same planet as anything like that happening. It seems like that because the news has wound us all up. Social media winds us all up. When we see the videos of the tragedies and the rioting. You're seeing this little keyhole. What's going on now? That little keyhole is the same reason as CNN can shamelessly claim that these demonstrations don't have any riot characteristics to them, even when something's burning behind them, which they're actually doing. If you saw the. Chris, was it Chris Aliza of cnn? He had an article basically suggesting that it's crazy to think there's any rioting going on. And then the photo accompanying it was of riots. And I thought even Matt Taibbi pointed it out, and he's no Trump lover. And even he pointed out that he thought CNN was going for some kind of a Guinness Book of World Records for headlines that don't match the story or the photo, which once you see it, you can't stop seeing it. They've been doing it all week. They. The headline doesn't have anything to do with the photo or the story, and somehow they're okay with that. It doesn't seem to matter. All right, so maybe we'll get to the bottom of who's funding these guys. And I think there might be some surprises. There might be. Ted Wheeler made a statement, I think it was yesterday, in which he talked about all the violence being Trump's fault. And here's what he left out, or actually, should I say this is what CNN left out. When they showed the video of Ted Wheeler talking, what did CNN leave out? They decided to clip out the part where he gave his reasons. Ted Wheeler, the governor. I'm sorry, the mayor of Portland. Right. Gave his reasons for why he thinks everything's Trump's fault. And those reasons were, I think, five CNN hoaxes. You know, it was like five things that just literally didn't ever happen except in the minds of people who watch CNN and msnbc. And so they think it happened. And I thought, did they do that intentionally? Did they cut into the story that the only reason he's acting the way he is and therefore. Therefore the actual riots in his city are literally because of five CNN hoaxes. He said that directly, that there were five CNN hoaxes. I don't even have to name them all. You know, them all. But that was driving his behavior and his decisions about what to do in this city. Think about that. The mayor is just saying right there that CNN is the cause of the trouble. So CNN cuts that part out. I don't know if they thought of it that way or they were just saving space on their segment, but they got rid of that part. I noticed. I think what this country needs is some kind of a common enemy so that, you know, all the citizens can band together and have some common enemy that we can rally around. And it's starting to look like Ted Wheeler is that common enemy because as he was speaking, Antifa was occupying his, the lobby of his apartment. So Antifa is moving against the mayor while the mayor is complaining that Trump, it's Trump's fault. But the reason is five hoaxes the CNN has been spreading and apparently this idiot believes them. All right, so there are a whole bunch of people arrested. Kenosha had 175 arrested, 175 were arrested. How many people were demonstrating? Again, you don't know. Do you watch how often you don't see reporting on how many people are protesting anywhere, how many counter protesters there are anywhere. You just don't see it. And I speculate that the reason you don't see the numbers is if you did, it would be easier to fix, Right? If you see this, what looks to be a massive number of people, you say to yourself, I don't know if there's any way to fix that. Even law enforcement would have a tough time with a crowd that big. But what if it's not that big? Because apparently the Trump counter protesters, if you want to call them that, the pro Blue Lives Matter people, apparently they had 650 vehicles, let's say three people in each vehicle. Did they have that many people? What is 3 times 650? Nearly 2,000 people did they were there nearly 2,000 people on the other side. I don't know. And when they were, how many, how many protesters were there? Because if, if the Trump people outnumbered them, let's say five to one, doesn't that tell you that the Trump anti, anti protest people, if you want to call them that, could stop this anytime they wanted to, they would just have to get out of their trucks. You know, most of those trucks didn't go through the riot zone. Most of them went around. But what if they'd just driven there and gotten out of their trucks? If they outnumbered them five to one, what would happen? I'm not suggesting that there should be violence. I don't recommend violence. But numbers change situations. The Crowds have the upper hand over the police because they're far more people in the crowds than there are in the police. But what if that reversed? What if there were 10 times as many citizens who didn't want an antifa protester situation? Then there were protesters. And they don't have to be armed, they just have to be there. And they have to be in a, you know, in a solid block and just walk down the street, clear out their city. Now, I don't know if that'll happen. I don't even know if it's a good idea. It might cause more trouble than it, than it solves. But you can't have that option without knowing how many people are involved each night. So you can kind of track, is this a growing problem or a shrinking problem? What's this look like? It's just curious that the most obvious piece of reporting, how many people have showed up? You always have this, but not now. You know what else you don't notice a lot? The death rate of coronavirus. Go to CNN and see if you can easily click from, let's say, their homepage and see how long it takes you to find some reporting on the death rate of coronavirus in this country, which I would argue is the number one biggest story. Right? Isn't it the biggest story? Tell me, what was the death rate today? Is it going up or is it going down? They'll tell you the infection rate. They'll tell you the infection rate. But the infection rate and the death rate are moving in opposite directions or have been. I need a confirmation of that. Yeah. So why are we not being informed about that? It's not a coincidence. I don't think so. So about two months ago, I caused a little trouble for myself, knowingly. Usually these days when I, when I get into trouble, it's because I did it intentionally and I did it for some strategic purpose. So I think it was just about two months ago I tweeted that if Biden gets elected that Republicans would be hunted. Now, can you imagine how much I was mocked by that two months ago? Because it's almost hard to put your, your head in just two months ago, because things change so quickly now it feels like a million years ago, but two months ago it just seemed patently ridiculous for somebody to say that Republicans would be hunted. Now I said after Biden won. So we don't know that yet, but I think people's opinion about whether it could happen has completely changed in two months over to a little bit closer to what I'm thinking because we're watching in the news Trump supporters being targeted for violence already that's undeniable. That is now a matter of fact that there are multiple cases of Trump supporters being targeted for violence just for political opinion. That's it. I should mention Tim Pool. You all know Tim Pool, well known, respected podcaster and probably a journalist, independent journalist. Would that be a better description? He was one of the people who mocked me a couple months ago for having what looked like a very hyperbolic opinion. I think it was yesterday that he actually issued a public apology. What to me and said other people owed me an apology because my prediction looks like it's going to be a lot closer to correct, at least in terms of the danger to Republicans. The part about Biden winning was always stated in an if. Now, I don't think that. I don't think we're quite there. Meaning I think while I greatly respect Tim offering the apology, which I immediately accepted, I don't know that he quite owed me that because I think you'd have to see, tragically, you would have to see more of this to really know that there's a pattern. It looks like a pattern, but you could be easily fooled by coincidence and anecdote. So we don't know. But I did appreciate that he did that. And I'll say this, this is a version of the principle that people who work in retail know this to be true. That a customer that complains and then you fix their complaint to their satisfaction will almost always be a better return repeat customer than someone who never had a complaint. That's very well documented effect. If they complain and you fix it, they feel special and they come back and they appreciate the fix far more than they. They can care about the fact that there was an initial problem because everybody understands it's an imperfect world. So similarly, it is very common for people to mock other people. I think I did it three times today already. So mocking people is simple and universal. But what is rare is circling back two months later and saying I was wrong. You know, the other one was closer to right on this. That's really rare. Tim Pool did this in public without being prompted. Nobody prompted him as far as I know. I didn't. I'd forgotten all about it. And that's rare. So that has to be called out for. Again, I would say being wrong and apologizing in public without prompting is a way higher level of human being than just being right. Being right in the first place isn't nearly as honorable, as good as it is everybody wants to be right, but being right in the first place and just staying right is cool, but, you know, it's nothing you would respect or not respect. It's just, hey, that's cool. I'm glad you're right. But a public apology, very rare. And it's a sign of character. That must be noted. And so I do. And yes, I unblocked immediately those who asked. All right, the SPLC has so far, you know them, the Southern Poverty Law Center. So they're used by fact. Check me if I'm wrong, but I think at least Facebook, maybe others use them as a source to know what groups or people are involved with hate speech and that informs the platforms how to deal with people on their platform. Now, the SPLC has refused to list Antifa as an extremist group. What? Are you kidding me? That as of today, the SPLC doesn't see a problem with Antifa? Seriously, how many people did they have to murder before you could say, hey, that's a group we should be looking at? And the reason I ask is because at one point, I don't know if he's still on there, but at one point Dr. Ben Carson was on their list. And I'm trying to understand what was their threshold for being on their hate group list if Ben Carson made the threshold, according to them. But Antifa has not. And Black Lives Matter, the group, not the concept Black Lives Matter has never reached the threshold of being an extremist, dangerous group. Are you kidding me? So obviously the SPLC is not a legitimate organization. It's going to get more and more embarrassing if you're using them for. As your source of truth at this point. And can you fact check me on this? It's Facebook that uses them, right? As one of their several sources of input. That's embarrassing at this point. I can't understand how they would continue to do that. So anybody who is paying the SPLC for their opinions, they've been completely ripped of their credibility if they ever had any. So this is the least credible group you would ever have. So I would say that the Facebooks, etc. If they're using that group to try to avoid, let's say, to ward off any kind of government regulation, shall we say? I don't think that's going to work. If you want to get regulated, just keep using the SPLC as your source of knowing who's a hate group. That'll get you regulated. Just take a little longer. But that's, that's like a direct line to regulation. If you hear, I don't know how long it'll take, let's say 18 months for now. If in 18 months the SPLC is still the advisor of who's a hate group for Facebook, fact check me that they're still doing that in 18 months, they're still doing that. Facebook is going to get regulated or dismantled. That's not a situation that can stand for the long run. Joe Biden fixed all of the violence in America. I don't know what took him so long, but he issued a statement and he said that the deadly violence we saw overnight in Portland is unacceptable. And I thought to myself, whoa, it's unacceptable. Why didn't he tell us this before? Do you know how many people got hurt while we were waiting for Biden to tell us that the overnight deadly violence is unacceptable? I'm glad it's finally fixed with that sternly worded statement, because without the sternly worded statement of condemnation, we would have had more violence. But tonight won't be any. Those protests will be done. If I understand how sternly worded statements work. Because if a sternly worded generic statement, that's exactly what you'd expect somebody to say. If that works, we should be doing more of it. And I'd have to ask, why is the President not also issuing daily sternly wording, sternly worded condemnations? Does the president not know how effective this is? Does he not know that with a tweet or two, he could end the violence like Joe Biden did? Somebody should tell the President. All right, so Joe Biden's a worthless bag of hoaxes. Basically. He sort of. When I think of Joe Biden, I tend to think in visual terms and I translate people into their animal spirit. Sometimes I see people as their animal. You know, once you see somebody's animal, you can't stop seeing it. But in Joe Biden's case, I don't see an animal with him, meaning some kind of animal that reminds me of him. That's very common. I'll see. People will say, you remind me of a duck. I don't know why, but you remind me of a duck. And now I can't see. I can't unsee it. You'll always be a duck to me, but Biden reminds me of an old leather pouch that is full of hoaxes because all that comes out of him is hoaxes and sort of ordinary stuff that's stale, you know, stale condemnations of. I don't like violence. I know this will come as A surprise to you, but I am opposed to violence. And it's this old, crumbly leather bag, and that's. It doesn't have eyes, maybe has a few strands of hair that are just, you know, like, came off of the horse or something. So that looks like his hair plugs. But, yeah, he's an old leather bag full of hoaxes. So that's who's running against the strongest. The strongest politician in 100 years. Should be close. All right. The New York Times ran a big article explaining why the very accurate testing that we've been favoring in the United States for the coronavirus is actually exactly the wrong thing. And that what you need is something less sensitive. I'll use the. Try to use the correct word. Less sensitive, but so cheap you can use it a lot. And you could stamp out the virus in a few weeks. Now, I had said to you that the math of it is so compelling, meaning that as soon as it is explained to you properly, you immediately say, oh, okay, I get it. I was thinking that you meant something else. So this is one of these rare situations where literally the only thing it takes to take somebody who thinks it's a bad idea and transform them into somebody who says, oh, I didn't know that's what you meant. That is a good idea is simply explaining it to them. But this one's a little hard to explain because it's counterintuitive. But once you hear it, like, you have to. You have to really concentrate for about five minutes, which is a lot these days. And I would imagine that getting a president to concentrate on anything for five minutes is actually kind of hard because imagine how many things he's dealing with during the course of the day. Getting a solid five minutes on some, you know, corner of a topic. It's probably a lot to do. And I had speculated that nobody had done that for President Trump, because the moment somebody does that for you, you say, this is it. Okay, we got to at least find out if this is real. You could be surprised later and find out it's not what you thought it was, but you would definitely stop what you were doing and say, I didn't realize this was so promising. These inexpensive yet less sensitive tests could eliminate the virus probably in three weeks if we had it. Now, when I say eliminate, I don't mean literally. I just mean to the point where your economy is open and life is back to normal. But we would still be picking up the virus for quite some time. We would just be able to deal with it. Really, really efficiently. Not the way we deal with it now. So now that it's hit the New York Times, and I like to feel that I was at least some contributor to raising the profile of that with was it Mina who's the primary driver of it and a number of other people. So I'm not going to take any credit except that I was a participant, one of a number of participants in just trying to boost this to get an answer on it. So maybe, maybe something good is happening because it was in the New York Times. Here's something that will scare you or should. There's reporting that the Democrats are going to be using a DARPA funded AI driven information warfare tool to target pro Trump accounts. Yes, an actual military grade mind control is going to be implemented for this election. Military grade. That's not a, I'm not exaggerating. Sometimes I say things are military grade just to say they're powerful. But this is actually literally, literally a military, you know, weapon that will be used against, used domestically because there's no rule against it. It's a weapon that doesn't. It's not kinetic, it's not poison. So apparently there's no law against it. There's no law against brainwashing your own citizens, apparently. And who's in charge of this? I guess if somebody, you know, unimportant was in charge of it, you wouldn't worry about it too much. Right. So let's see who's in charge of it. General McChrystal. Who was he fired by? Obama. He was in charge of Afghanistan. Did Obama fire him? Not sure if I remember that correct. Check me on that. But an actual military general who is familiar with these tools from his work in the military is aligning with some kind of Democrat political action committee to quote, this is from Fox News site, to quote, planning to deploy the technology initially developed to counter terrorist propaganda to combat President Trump's campaign messages about the coronavirus, an effort that will benefit his challenger Joe Biden, according to a report. So the group is called Defeat disinfo. Now, here's the first brainwashing trick. If I told you that there was a tool that would be used by a military general domestically to brainwash the public, what would you say? You'd say exactly what you just thought, which was, whoa, we don't want any of that. We don't want a military general using a military brainwashing technique to brainwash our citizens during an election. That would literally be the worst thing that could ever happen. Right. You all think that so what did they say that they are doing instead of that? They even put it in the name defeat Disinfo. They are framing this as defeating President Trump's brainwashing. They're actually selling this. And will succeed, by the way. They will succeed at this. Why? Because it's military grade brainwashing. It will succeed. They will first succeed in telling you that it's not what you think it is. And they will succeed at that, at least for the Democrats. That's all the only ones they have to convince, really. They will convince the Democrats that all that's happening is they found a technology that will help get rid of President Trump's disinformation and they will sell that. That's what they're doing. That's not what they're doing. They may do that also, but what they're doing is just flat brainwashing. There's no nuance to it. It is flat brainwashing and it involves, I would imagine, not only messaging, but the way they deliver the message. And I think some of this depends on using social media to build a counter narrative through a network of 3.4 million influencers across the country, even paying some users. This is again from the Fox News site. Even paying some users with large followings to oppose the president. That's right. There will be people who you think are citizens, who just have big accounts, who will be paid to disseminate brainwashing propaganda. That's not speculative. It's not even what they're not admitting, apparently. This is just publicly known and there's no counter narrative to it. This is exactly what's happening. I'm not making any of this up. This is national news. Does that scare you? Well, let me set it up this way. On the Democrat side, they have our highest level of military experience, software, tools and network to literally brainwash the public. So that's what the Democrats have. What the Republicans have is me. So I'd say it's a fair fight. Now, I say that jokingly, of course. President Trump is the most powerful. Let's say I've called him a persuasion expert, in different words. So that's actually a fair fight. The most powerful military brainwashing against President Trump and his somewhat, let's call it volunteer patriot, army of hypnotists, mindset experts and influencers. Who do you bet on? You gonna bet on the military? We do have the best military in the history of civilization. All right, if you were going to bet on the US Military's best brainwashing weapons and most Highly chained general versus a ragtag group of who, Me, Mike Cernovich, half a dozen other people that come to mind who are good at this stuff, and the president. Does it seem like a fair fight? It's a fair fight. It is a fair fight. And they don't know what's coming for them. They really don't. The Democrats have no idea what's coming for them. The next two months are just going to be lit. You won't know what's true by November. You won't know if you exist by November. Everything you knew about reality is just going to get blown up. And if you can reassemble it before election day, good luck. But your brain is going to get scrambled. You're going to be getting it from every direction, and you're not getting it from amateurs. This is professional now. This is purely professional work with some amateurs who are. Who are helping out. But even the amateurs in this case know what they're doing. So I've said this before, that I see the world as. There's this movie, Underworld. It's one of my favorite movies with Kate Beckinsale, who plays this kind of a vampire hunter. And in this movie, the general idea is that the humans are unaware. We're just going about our lives unaware that the vampires and the werewolves who live underground mostly, are having this war that's sort of perpetual war. And it's a big war, but we're just going along our day. We don't know that we're right in the middle of a vampire, you know, werewolf war. That's how exactly how I see the world. Except there's more than one war. There are actually several wars going on under the surface that sometimes I get to see because I have. I have a white privileged view, actually. I don't know if the white part has anything to do with it, but I do have a privileged. A privileged view into a lot of stuff that you don't get to see. For a variety of reasons, people want me to see what they're doing. Often people say, hey, look what I'm doing. Do you think this is gonna work or not? So I just sort of see a lot of stuff that you don't get to see. And trust me, there are several raging wars just under the surface that you just don't see. What you see sometimes is the outcome. But you think it's due to just news like, you'll see. Let's say you'll see something really bad happens to a famous person on either side. They're either Democrat or they're Republican, and there's this terrible tragedy that happens to them in terms of, say, some news comes out and you think to yourself, wow, that was bad luck. Nope. That was probably somebody who fell to the war that you're not watching. There were people who actually got taken out by either the vampires or the werewolves, and you have no idea that's what happened. All you know is somebody decided to take some time off from politics. You know, you see just sort of the, the sanitized ultimate part is, well, it looks like this person decided to change careers or that sort of thing. But what you're going to see in the next few months will be just crazy. It's not going to be like anything you've seen before. It will be crazy. But when it's over, we will be still the United States. We will be the United States. When this is over, we will have a perfect union, as perfect as it could be. We will still have our Constitution. We will be a nation of laws. We will be the strongest country on the planet Earth. We will. But the next two months, Crazy. They're going to be crazy. Get ready. Just remember that on the other end of it, it's going to be cool, because it will be. And everything you see, think of it more like a nightmare. Think of it. None of it is real. Assume that every story you hear is manufactured by either a werewolf or a vampire. From now until Election Day, only the vampires. And the wolves control the news cycle. In other times, they can step back and let the news just be the news. But for the next couple months, it's werewolves or vampires. You'll never see them. But the news is not the real news from now until November. It never has been, but it'll be at a level you've never seen before. For example, was it the New York Times who had a big story this week that I get lost in all the details of the Russia collusion stuff, but to the extent that. Was it Rosenstein who stopped looking into Trump's situation and didn't tell the FBI or some story like that, and then somebody who was actually there, one of the top prosecutors for Mueller, just came in after the story is written and everybody's digested it and it's your truth for now, comes in after the fact and said, no, none of that's true. I work there. I work there. None of that's true. But it seemed. It seemed a little true to you for a few days, didn't it? Now I have to confess, I saw the New York Times story, mention of it. I read the headlines and the first few words to hear what it was about and I immediately said, no, that's coming from a vampire or a werewolf. That's not true. So I'll just ignore it for a few days. Sure enough, you ignore it for a few days. Somebody comes out who actually was there and says, no, none of that happened. That's just completely made up. That's what happened. So you got that going on. Mike Cernovich also said that the bots are back. The bots who are, you know, you see, around election time. Now, I have told you that my bots are back as well. So I have more bot activity than ever. It's not nearly as bad as it was in 2016, but remember I told you that there's one really, really hardworking bottom who every time I block, he opens up a new account and he changes the profile picture to my deceased stepson's picture. And then he writes horrible things about me as a stepparent for letting him die. That's the accusation. Now, do you think that that came from just an individual who was very concerned about that specific story, has a mission to say something about it, or maybe there's some bigger point or just going to put it out there or when I see that, is that the obvious outcome of a military operation against me? What would you say? Does the fact that this troll is so hardworking, I mean, this is somebody who's putting serious time into it. You know, they've carved out something in their schedule to only plague me with pictures of my deceased stepson while it's fresh in my mind. Does that sound like just a citizen who just decided to take action? Doesn't like me, thought this would hurt me? Does that sound like a citizen or does it sound like a military grade brainwashing operation designed to take me off the field? Because if I were an advanced AI military brainwashing operation, I would look for the most influential people and I would target them first. You're the military. You're not going to target people who are unimportant. You're going to target people who can move the needle, people who have a track record of predicting and influencing. You would go after them first, so you would see. Watch this. So Mike Cernovich seems to have decided that he's going to back Trump. There was some question about that earlier on, but it seems he's made that decision. I can't speak for his mind, but just in terms of his tweets, it looks like he's going that way. He. And he says that the bots have attacked him. You should expect that between now and election day, there will be a fake news story about Mike Cernovich. Watch for this. You'll see something that just doesn't, you know, why did this pop up now? So I would imagine that there literally are people who are huddling, trying to figure out how to take him out. Likewise, I would expect that there are people huddling and literally planning on what's the best psychological way to get into my head and take me out. Now, I'm kind of unusual in that I'm trained. I'm a trained hypnotist. I can sort of recognize technique a little bit better when it's coming at me. So I've got a little bit of defense, A little bit of defense. Oh, somebody said, is he on the periscope now? Probably, because, I mean, I blocked him yet again the other day, but I imagine he's back. So look for that. I tweeted the other day that we might be witnessing the end of the Democratic Party for decades. Do you think that's true? It's just one of the possibilities. If you're imagining the future and you're saying, okay, the future could take this path or that path, one of the paths that's really wide right now that you can see really clearly doesn't mean it's going to go that way. But the widest, cleanest, straightest path from where we are right now would be a semi destruction of the Democratic Party for decades. You know, when Lyndon Johnson famously passed, what was it, Civil rights legislation, and he was said to have commented very grotesquely that the Democrats would have the black votes for generations. And sure enough. And they earned it. All right. Nobody says they didn't earn it. If the Democrats passed the legislation that was good for the, you know, the black community, they recognized it. They voted Democrat. Hey, they earned it. They got that fair and square. But at the moment, you're watching the Democrats rip apart the fabric of civilization and set back black lives in terms of, you know, how they fit into American society. Probably set back their effort by 20 years. I would say that the. The branding and the visuals and the way our brains are being influenced by watching the protests certainly have made people far more prejudiced than they've ever been in my lifetime. I would say that right now, people are the most angry about other groups than probably I've ever seen. And I've been around a while, and that's the Democrats, and that's the brainwashing and the fake news, they've done this satanic trick. In this case. This is not hyperbole, it's just description. A satanic trip. If I can quote Kevin Spacey from the Usual Suspects, the best trick Satan ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. And the fake news has done that. They have done the Satan trick. They've convinced you that there's no fake news, or they've convinced a segment of the population that there's no fake news. And therefore, since fake news doesn't exist, that's the satanic part, that it doesn't exist. It must be Trump's fault. Trump's the leader, so whatever's going on that looks like social division, well, that's got to be the leader. Now, if you're not brainwashed by this satanic trick, where you can actually see that the fake news is continually fake news and they don't even hide it anymore. And we're way beyond the fact. We're way beyond the place where the fake news was hiding it. It's just right there. Now they'll just put it out like they don't care in that world. The Republicans at least see what's going on in that regard. But Democrats actually think there's no such thing as fake news, at least on their side. They don't think it's fake news. Can you imagine from. So most of you are, you know, pro Trump type viewers. Can you wrap your head around the fact that something like half the country hasn't noticed that all of their news is just made up that they haven't noticed? That's hard to wrap your head around, isn't it? But that's what's happening. And if you were a trained hypnotist or trained psychologist, you actually wouldn't be surprised about that because cognitive dissonance is really powerful. And it predicts this is exactly what people would think. Because for the Democrats to believe that their news is fake news would be to believe that they've been wrong about a lot of stuff. And people can't do that. So that's what makes cognitive dissonance kick in. So President Trump has decided that he wants to go to Kenosha and visit. That's a pretty powerful move. Powerful because of coronavirus, powerful because the demonstrations were, in some ways they had an anti Trump flavor to them. So for him to go there, it's kind of a. It's a strong move and some would say ill advised, but that's how strong it is. It's so strong that other people say, I don't even know if you should do that. Which is, by the way, Trump's sweet spot. Do you know what Trump likes to do? He likes to do things that are so strong, other people think it's a bad idea. Let's move our embassy to Jerusalem. Oh, you can't do that. Whoa, whoa, whoa. That's too strong. That's okay. Worked out. Let's recognize the Golan Heights as part of Israel. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. That's. That's a little strong. You know, Back up a little bit. President Trump. That's gone too far. It worked out. Oh, okay. Well, I didn't think that would work out. I'm gonna. I'm going to kill the Iran deal. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Oh, that seems like it's starting to move in our direction. So this is his sweet spot. Doing things that other people say it's too much, and then it works out because he can make it work. The governor of Wisconsin is encouraging him not to come. Why? Because this would be one of the triggers to begin generations of Democrats being out of power. Because Biden has already said he won't go because he's afraid. Now, he didn't say because I'm afraid, but how else do you interpret it? I don't know another way to interpret it. Now, that doesn't mean he's afraid for his own safety necessarily, although you always have to worry about that. He's probably concerned about the larger. Everything that would happen if he went there. But it makes him look weak, and it makes it look like the President cares about the citizens who have their livelihoods stripped away from them. It's a. I think it's. Wisconsin is a battleground state. Right. I'm not sure if you technically. Which ones are technically battleground and which ones are just in play, if there's any difference. And I think this is just. This is a killer move. I mean, this is. This is a predator move versus prey. When you see Trump going toward the trouble like a boss, how do you feel about that? Good, right? You feel like your leader is a leader and he's going toward trouble like a boss. What do you think of Biden who said, I think I'll stay in my basement a little bit longer, not like a boss. It's the difference between a predator and prey. Nobody wants their leader to be prey. Even if you don't like the predator, if he's on your side, if the predator is on your side, you just get more meat. That's how it works. So I think people are going to go with the more meat option on this election. And the Wisconsin governor knows that this is a big problem for Democrats. So he was trying to discourage it, to your surprise. But maybe you shouldn't be surprised. Joe Scarborough is coming out strongly against the Democratic leaders of these cities and strongly encouraging them, at least by tweet and probably more, to clamp down on it and to accept Trump's help to get rid of the trouble. Now, as you know, Joe Scarborough is famously super anti Trump, but on this issue, he is completely Trump, meaning compatible with a Trump opinion. And I like to just call that out. I just like to call that out because I don't know if this is easy to do if you are, you know, if you've branded yourself as an anti Trumper and that's your career. But it is a patriotic thing to do. It's patriotic. I would say that Joe Scarborough in this situation, not judging anything else he's ever done in his life, but in this one situation about the cities and the demonstrations and the violence, he's being a patriot. So thank you. Appreciate it. Have you noticed there's something that's happening in a slow trickle that's becoming a fast trickle and it's going to turn into a waterfall. And we're right about there. So you've been hearing about, let's say yesterday, Ivanka tweeted this, that the U.S. marshals Service found 39 missing children in Georgia over two weeks in an operation known as Operation Not Forgotten. What? There were 39 children who were missing. Missing 39 of them. And that's just the ones they found in two weeks in one state. Two weeks, one state, 39 missing kids. Are you freaking kidding me? Also, you've seen a number of people identified fairly quickly when their faces were shown committing a crime. There was the somebody tried, was doing a rape in broad daylight. I think it was on a Manhattan subway platform. His face was visible in some video footage. Got caught right away. The, the guy who shot the Trump supporter in Portland, they got him. So if he was on video, they can catch him. Now, what is it that's happening that I say is a trickle that will turn into a gush and then a waterfall. Here's what's different. There are two technologies that when you hear about them, you say, oh, those are cool, but you don't quite understand how cool they are yet because you might think, well, that's a little creepy, and that, you know, that distracts you. One of them is Othram, for example, the, the company that will, if you have any DNA, let's say from some kind of a sex crime, if they have any DNA. In the old days, they couldn't even test it. If they could, they could find you if you happen to be a criminal in their database. But that's a small database compared to the whole world. So mostly you just couldn't get people even if you had their DNA. That has changed. Othram's technology allows you to find a family connection, which at this point you can do. Find most of them, you know, not 100%, but you can get pretty close. And then also you have Clearview and other companies that are doing facial recognition. So these days, if you have any picture of a face or any DNA, your odds of getting caught are really high. And the ones that clearly are, the ones that are the ones you would target would be child trafficking and unsolved and even fresher rape cases and any kind of violence where somebody's face is shown. Those three categories have just moved from the really hard to solve into we got you. Every time you're going to see a flood of solved sex crimes, child trafficking crimes, and violence of anybody who had, who showed up on camera, they're all going to get assaulted or very close. You know, nothing's 100%, but they can get pretty close. Let's say 90% for a working number. About 90% of these unsolvable crimes are now solvable this year. Just this year. This is brand new. When you put together, you know, the Othrams and the Clearviews, good luck being a criminal. It's a bad time to be a criminal. So you got that. All right, so the Republicans are trying the Democrat technique of hoax edits. So I guess Scalise and allies, as they're called, put together a video in which they doctored by adding the phrase for police to the end of the this disabled man's statements about Biden and made it seem as though Biden wanted to defund the police. But in fact, when you put the. If you take away the. The doctor part, it only says that he wants to take money away from the police and give it somewhere else. What now you might say to yourself, well, that sounds a lot like defunding the police, but it does have some nuance because if you do it right, you're not defunding and leaving a gap. You're moving funding into something that fills the gap, ideally better than the way it was filled before. So, you know, that's the Real intent. But apparently with this hoax edit, it made it look like a little bit more like just defunding the police, even though it's not that big a difference. So. And then I guess it was taken off now because the Democrats opened this door. The fake edits seem to live forever. You know, the fine people hoax is a fake edit. The drinking disinfectant is a fake edit. The overfeeding, the koi fish is a fake edit. So it looks like the Republicans have just said, well, we'll do that too, if we can live for four years with CNN never correcting a fake edit hoax. They know it's a hoax and they never correct it. Why can't they do it? The tool is there. Once the Democrats have established that a hoax edit will still live and work even after it's been debunked, it doesn't make any difference at all. And the other side is doing it. Not just a little, but it's literally Joe Biden's primary campaign thrust is these two hoax edit things, the disinfectant thing and the fine people hoax. So why wouldn't Republicans do it? I'm not recommending it, but you'd be naive to assume they wouldn't give it a try because it works pretty well. All right. If you think that you can tell which leaders are the best leaders in terms of how they. How they did with coronavirus, I would ask you to perform this following test. Lump together the states in the United States that handle things roughly the same, whatever that means, you know, either they were tough on masks or not or whatever. Take out the nursing home part, because I think that has to be a special case. Just take out the nursing home part and then compare all of the states by what techniques they used and see if there's a difference. Because if all the states that use the same kind of leadership and the same decisions got different results, then you'd have to say leadership is not a variable that matters too much, which is my opinion, that leadership is not a variable that matters too much. Because all of the leaders could only deal with the tools that they had. Not the tools they wish they had, but the tools they had. The country they have, not the one they wish they had. The, you know, the fact that our test kits were garbage in the beginning, what leader would have gotten that right? If you took the New Zealand president, put her, put her in charge of the United States, would she have fixed those bad test kits before they were launched? No, she wouldn't know there was anything wrong with them. So if you think leadership is the deciding factor, it's a simple test. Just look at our different states, see if the ones who managed it the same way got the same results. I don't know what the answer to that is, but I don't think it's going to be as clean as people would imagine. There is an article I tweeted I think yesterday that the idea that we live in a simulation is getting closer and closer to something like a proof. Now it's not there, but what you would look for is all the evidence, you know in every little way that there's something wrong with our reality. In other words, there's something that just doesn't make sense if we're an actual reality the way we think we are, but would only make sense if we were a programmed software simulation. And you'll have to read the article, but there are plenty of, there's new experimental, let's say, evidence that reality is very subjective, meaning that you're actually creating reality as you go, including maybe the past. Because if you can create the past, well, that's a simulation. Because the way you'd write a simulation is you wouldn't fill in all the details of the past until somebody needed it. You know, my example is if you go digging in your backyard and nobody has ever dug there before, the simulation doesn't have to put anything there except randomly. It could put a dinosaur bone there and then maybe there would be some under your neighbors homes, but until one of you dug, there would have been no dinosaur bones under anybody's house. But when you hit the dinosaur bone, then the simulation said, I guess it's a dinosaur burial ground and gave some dinosaur bones under the other houses. So that's what a simulation would be. Because you wouldn't program that in advance. You'd wait until you needed it and say, ah, this guy needs a history for why did that bone get under the ground? Okay, we'll give him a dinosaur. So look for that. All right, that's all I got. Now somebody says, is it a sim? If it's a sim, then by definition there is a God. By definition there would be an intelligent design. If we were a simulation. You can put any word on that you want. How is this view helpful? Let me tell you how. If we are a simulation and if we get to rewrite our situation, the thing you would look for is that people who have that belief that you can sort of author your own view would be able to have better results than people who didn't. So people who Believe in this worldview, for example, are Elon Musk. Elon Musk believes that. You know, or at least he says it. Who knows what he actually thinks? But he says that the simulation is the most likely explanation. Does Elon Musk have a life? That would suggest he can directly manipulate the simulation. Yeah, he does. Yeah, he does. I mean, pretty much everything he does. Looks like he directly controls the simulation. He's got $35 billion to show for it, or something like that. He's rich. Do I look like I manipulate the simulation? Have you been watching me? A while. If I don't look to you like I can rewrite this simulation, I don't think you've been paying attention. That doesn't mean I am. Could be just an illusion. But what you would look for is all the people who think they can write it seem to be getting better results. So I do believe that if we are characters in some kind of a software game, that we have at least the power to be aware of it and then start crafting our own reality. And it could be different. Your reality could be completely in conflict with mine. But as long as you and I don't talk, it's fine. That's exactly how you would write software. You wouldn't waste all of your software resources making your history and my history compatible when it would be easier for me to say, I think you're lying or mistaken. And the other person to say, no, your history that you tell me is right. No, I think you're lying or mistaken. That would be the shortcut. It would be cognitive dissonance in the way we experience it. Just like you experience it. All right, Mask him. That in 2008. I don't know what that comment means. Yes, it's the user interface for reality. If you want to see more of this, just Google the user interface for reality and my name and you'll see my longer explanation of this. That's all I got for now. I'll talk to you later.