Episode 2510 CWSA 06/19/24

No, I don't think I should do this. I probably shouldn't do this. No. Well, good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization. It's called Coffee with Scott Adams. And I don't think there's ever been a better day in your whole life. And if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny human brains, well, for that, all you're going to need is a cup or mug or glass, a tank of jealous of stein, a canteen, jug or flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine to the day, the thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens. Now go. I don't know if you noticed it, but I accidentally started channeling Andrew Tate for just a moment when I said better. Do you ever notice the way Andrew Tate pronounces some words? He gives that real clear pronunciation to some. Well, sometimes I like it better. Better. Anyway, if you're reading the Dilber comic, which you can only see if you subscribe on X or on Scott Adams.locals.com, you would know that Wally is being accused of being a mouse jiggler. How many of you know what that is? A mouse jiggler? Apparently, there are devices you can buy easily on Amazon anywhere else that literally jiggle your computer mouse. And it makes it look like you're working if your boss is monitoring your keystrokes. So apparently people have been buying mouse jigglers so they can just not work. And I wondered if anybody ever used one of those for a real mouse. I don't know. It feels like it'd be a fun ride for an actual mouse. So here's my news for today. First of all, happy Juneteenth, our most divisive of all holidays. Let me explain to you how holidays work. I believe you're told, hey, these holidays are something that's good and natural, and we should be celebrating them. The holidays are a little bit artificial. Here's something I heard the other day that I'd never heard before, and I guess I need a fact check on it. And it goes like this, that Santa Claus was invented by the Coca Cola Company to sell Coca Cola in the winter because people thought it was a summer drink. Have you ever heard that? Apparently they took St. Nicholas and, yeah, they said, yeah, St. Nicholas and some other. And somebody who was a robber who used to go down chimneys. He was a chimney sweep. And they, they combined like a saint with a robbery and then they put him in a red and white Santa Claus outfit and they put him on the, you know, the COVID of the Coca Cola. And the reason Santa Claus is red and white is that those are Coca Cola's corporate colors. Did you know that Santa Claus was invented for Kris Kringle and a saint named Klaus? So Kris Kringle was the criminal who would go down your chimney and steal your stuff. So Christmas isn't exactly the, the thing you were taught when you were a child. How about, you know, Mother's Day and Valentine's Day? Well, both made up by Hallmark as follow probably or something like that. So we have a lot of artificial holidays, but one of the things that our national holidays are meant to do, such as the fourth of July or to bring unity to the country, because you're probably aware you're all adults, you know that children have to be brainwashed. Every country does it. It's necessary. So you brainwash your kids into thinking they grew up in the greatest country, in the greatest culture and they should respect their parents and all the things and go to school and, you know, join the army if you need that. So holidays are a little bit about taking some time off, but they're a lot about brainwashing if, if it's a national one. So for example, there's a reason there's a Veterans Day and a Memorial Day because it's to the country's national best interest that we respect veterans. So we have, you know, two whole holidays that are dedicated just to veterans. It's just good for the country. It's a unifying thing. Juneteenth is different because it's specifically created to be a non unifying thing to imagine. And by the way, it's based on fact. So I'm not saying it's historically inaccurate, it's based on fact. But to imagine that there's a different Freedom Day for black Americans and white Americans can be true and it can be important to note in history, but if you turn it into a holiday, it becomes part of your brainwashing mechanism. And it works in reverse of how that is supposed to work. What it's supposed to do is give you an artificial sense of unity, even if they make it up. So, so the holidays and the, the brainwashing that the kids are getting and the rest of us are getting, it isn't really meant to be historically accurate per se. It's supposed to turn you into more unified, stronger citizens in a stronger country. And I would say that Juneteenth, while historically accurate and respectful to a certain group of people in the country, is not unifying. So it works against the interests of the country. Even though we can all have good feelings about each other in terms of a system, it's a system fail. So we can say the good things about honors, things that should be honored. It's historically accurate. It does make a correct distinction between freedom of people and freedom as others. But in terms of why you have holidays, at least the ones that are have a national interest, not the Santa Claus kind, but the reason you have them is for unity. This is the opposite. So I'd say it's a failure of a holiday, even though we can still be respectful of the event. All right, well, this will amaze you, but there are two more things that coffee has been found to be good for. Number one is good for your skin. According to one study, you're probably wondering, how much coffee do I rub on my skin? No, no, you still take it internally. But they say it's good for reducing your brown spots or whatever. I don't know. To me, it seems like if you drink enough coffee, you're going to create some brown spots, but that's a whole different dad joke, so forget about that. It's good for your skin. And then there's some surprising link in another study that it might be good for your liver. That's right. Coffee is good from your skin to your liver. And if I were a coffee marketing person, that's exactly what I'd say. It's good for you, from your soul to your skin to your liver, according to science. So everybody who comes to have the simultaneous sip with me, just know that with every sip, your liver is getting healthier, your skin is getting more beautiful. And maybe it's just my opinion, but I think you're getting sexier. Is it just me? I think you're all getting sexier with every sip. I'll drink to that. Here's to your ever increasing sexiness. Oh, wow. I just felt a brown spot disappear in my liver. Oh. My liver has never felt this good before. Whoa. Can you feel that in your liver? All right, here's another study that, you know, maybe you could have just asked Scott. There's a study that finds that weightlifting at retirement age keeps your legs strong for years later. So it turns out that weightlifting makes you stronger. Okay, got it. And it doesn't go away right away. Check. Two things you could have asked me about. Were you surprised? When was the last time you Saw a study that said exercise is bad for you. Oh, there's a new study that says exercise is bad for you. No, there isn't. Every time there's a study about anything involving weightlifting or cardio, unless you overdid it, which is a separate problem, they're going to say it's good for you. I will repeat my best advice ever for aging. Number one, best advice, start early. You should create a lifetime exercise program that you can keep doing when you're older. One of the reasons I took up tennis as a lifetime sport is it's both social and it's one you can do into your older years. So I can still play tennis once a week, get a little sore, but it's still good for me. So I would say work on your mobility, protect your knees. And I got a leg press in my man cave this year for this reason. I wanted to make sure that my lower body muscles were on point. And you can't always run. When you get a certain age, running becomes less and less practical because you're banging on your joints. But a good leg press is worth a lot, so keep your mobility going. So here are a few things that AI is doing that are less sexy than other things, but maybe a really big deal. So there's over in the uk, they figured out how to design magnets. They designed a new kind of magnet using AI to come up with the design. And apparently it's going to have all kinds of benefits. And if you can make a better magnet, you can make more efficient engines and more efficient everything. So already AI has discovered a way to make magnets which appears to work that is better than anybody's ever come up with a magnet. And it's a real big deal. Likewise, other AI figured out how to use AI well, the AI didn't figure it out, but they're using AI to control batteries so that the battery discharges, you know, in a more, let's say a more optimal way. And simply doing that, you can unlock 10% more capacity and have a 25% longer life. So you get a free 25% just by managing your batteries with AI. So all of these little 10% here, 25% here, this stuff's really going to add up. So I think the world of boring things is what AI is going to make the biggest difference in. Hey, AI, can you give me 10,000 designs for a new magnet? You know, the boring stuff. And then it will. There's also, there's other reports about material science, etc, so the materials science and batteries are going to really make a big difference in the AI world. Now, there's also thought that the fusion reactors require, I think fusion or maybe it's fission as well, that if you have AI, you can optimize lots of things and, you know, be much more efficient. So AI is going to be like a 25 boost on everything. Now, remember, you were thinking, how could we ever pay off our national debt? And you think, well, you know, you need the GDP to grow like crazy and productivity to be unprecedented. We might be on the edge of unprecedented production. Imagine, imagine what Amazon's costs will be once robots are doing everything from delivery to all the package handling to customer complaints. Amazon will be probably close to customer free. Bezos might design an entire company that just doesn't need anything by him and his dog to run the whole thing. So if I were betting on cost reduction, I would look for big companies have lots of employees that are most likely to be replaced by robots, which would be bad for maybe society because people will be jobless. But some companies are going to make a lot of money by reducing expenses pretty soon, too, maybe two years from now. Other good news, the Senate passed a package to boost nuclear energy, and they're sending sending it to Biden's desk for a signature. So among the things it's supposed to do, it's going to speed up the licensing process for nuclear reactors, which can take, what, a decade or two? I mean, it's so impractical to even start a business. It's just crazy. So it's basically requiring the government agencies to put together a method for simplifying and shortening the environmental review process. So the big thing that keeps America from being competitive, despite our technical excellence, despite the fact that we have resources, is that we've managed to make it impossible to build nuclear power plants because of the paperwork and the laws and the policies and the regulations and the processes. And looks like they're going to try to fix that. Although I do have some skepticism about forming big bureaucratic committees to try to get rid of the bureaucracy. I feel like they're going to add rules instead of subtract them, if that's like everything else in the world. But at least it looks like it's that the thinking is in the right direction. So maybe something good will come from that. I love talking about the failing Washington Post. Things are just getting worse for them since they canceled Dilbert. And it's not the only reason, of course, but I'm loving the drama. They've got a new CEO who's sort of embattled because he's an ex conservative leaning editor. So the staff doesn't trust him. And they're revolting. That's right, the staff is revolting. Especially Phil Bump. He's revolting. No, but seriously, folks. So the new CEO, William Lewis is getting a lot of stuff, but one of the new news is, one of the new reports is that he's creating what he calls a third newsroom within the Washington Post. Now, I don't remember what the first two are, but you know, they have some logical division in the existing business. But they're going to create a third newsroom and it's going to do more news, I guess, on social media or online or something different than what they're doing now more natively inserting it into social media, I think. But here's how you should really read this. It's not a, it's not a third newsroom. It's the one that's going to replace the other two. I love the fact that the Washington Post, which is known for, you know, it's most famous for and fake news, at least among my audience, is most famous for fake news. That they're, that they're trying some fake news on their own employees. Hey, boss, it almost looks like you're starting up a new division which is the only thing with the possibility of growth while the existing divisions have either stalled or declined. So is that really a third newsroom or is that the thing that's going to replace us because you know that we can't possibly succeed because there's nothing you could do to revive the, you know, the old model of news? Yes, the Washington Post is looking to replace basically everybody there with this third newsroom, which they're trying to act like it's just a little thing we're adding. Don't pay attention to it. It's just a little thing we're doing. If you haven't watched the new video with Toka Carlson and Glenn Greenwald, highly recommend it, much more interesting than I thought it would be. And some of the things that, that I noted as I was watching it is I don't want to ruin it for you, but there's an anecdote that Glenn Greenwald talks about when he talks about when he was in college, I GUESS he was 19 and he had a substantial encounter with a conservative part of the world which he was not in. Now, I don't want to ruin it for you, but you got to hear it. It's just one of the all time Great stories just in terms of understanding America and understanding, you know, our political differences versus what's real and, you know, what's not real. So I highly, highly recommend Somewhere in the Middle of It. It's a long interview, but somewhere in the Middle he tells that story about his online interaction as. As youth with the conservative world. And it will explain to you a lot, because didn't you wonder how in the world could it be that Glenn Greenwald, who you thought was sort of left leaning, seems to have so many opinions that are compatible with conservatives at the moment? And you say to yourself, did he. Did something happen? You know, like, how do you even have that transition? And it turns out it was something he came by honestly, which is through a conscious, planned interaction with both sides of the country. I could not have more respect for the way he approached his understanding of the world. Now I'm listening to it, and he's talking about how Democrats used to be for free speech and now they're against free speech. And he was couching the discussion about how the left and the right seem to have switched places as something that looked like hypocrisy. And I thought to myself, people who talk about hypocrisy are operating at the lowest level, or maybe the second to lowest level of politics. That's where you think that things are. The news is kind of accurate and that there are some people who know what they should say or what it. You're. What would be consistent with their principles, but they've. They've knowingly chosen to do something selfishly hypocritical. Now, that's a real way to describe things that are happening, that's actually happening. But I thought, if you're stuck in that level of awareness, you're missing the whole show. And so for a moment, I was worried that Greenwald was maybe locked into that lower level, which would have surprised me because it would be opposite of what I've observed. But then he soon pivoted to a full understanding that we're in a persuasion environment. And you got to hear him talk about how the world is nothing but persuasion. These are my own words, not his. But. But he does have a full understanding that people do not arrive at their own opinions that are. He doesn't use these words either, but he's very aware that our opinions were assigned to us by operators in the news, and that what you think is your opinion about things is really artificial. You've just been programmed. So he does see the world as a massive brainwashing operation. And if you're talking about stuff like who's a hypocrite? You're just completely lost. And that's the lowest level of understanding. The highest level is that nobody's doing any thinking at all, that the corporate media is just telling people what their opinions are. And they go, well, I guess that sounds good. And then they go, act like it and they get angry. But let me give you my own version. So I highly recommend it on Tucker's, Tucker's Channel. You'll see it on X. Anyway, here's how the corporate news is created. And this would be what Democrats generally don't understand. But I can say for sure, based on listening to Glenn Greenwald, that he definitely understands it, as does Tucker. And it works like this. So here's an example of how news. Let's say that President Biden shuffles into a janitor closet and start sniffing the mops. Now, if the news were real, it would say President Biden, suffering from late stage dementia, wandered into a janitor closet and started sniffing the mops. We don't believe he is qualified to be president. Steps are being taken to remove him from office. Now, that's what an actual real news might cover. If, for example, he did that thing. Here's how it really is handled in our world. Biden shuffles into a janitor closet and starts sniffing the mops. Word gets out, maybe not through the regular news. And then the Democrats have to create a narrative that Trump is the real mop sniffer or possibly the cause of all mop sniffing everywhere. Then the corporate media pushes the Democrat narrative that Trump is the real mop sniffer or the cause of all mob sniffing. And then those opinions are assigned to Democrats via the process, this process. And Democrats come to believe that they thought of it themselves. You know, I really do think that Trump is the real mob sniffer and maybe the cause of all mop sniffing around the world. That's my own opinion that I just came up with on my own. Does it match exactly the narrative that has been fed to me and shoved down my throat by my brainwashers? Yes, it does. But that's just because they're smart and they see it too. We all see it. It's so obvious, the narrative. But then there's another step. After the opinions are assigned to Democrats, then the Democrats can't understand how the Republicans could ever back on mop sniffer for president. How? Well, what. And then you have like a, A Joe Morning Joe meltdown. How in the world. How, how can they back a Mob sniffer. A mob sniffer. A mob sniffer. And then step seven, the Democrats seek professional therapy to understand why nothing seems to make sense. And why is the world promoting a mop sniffer for president who is also a racist and a sexist. Now, that's actually literally what's happening. I mean, I made up the mops sniffer part, but I do believe the Democrats wake up and say, what bad thing have we done that that we got caught at? We better form a narrative that says, it's really Trump or it's the white supremacists hiding in the Hill or it's the MAGA people who are really rotten at the core. Their entire game is convincing their own people that what they see isn't true. And then their own people are signing up for therapy like crazy because they don't know why their world doesn't make sense anymore and why people would be electing, you know, this Trump mop sniffer when clearly we don't want a mop sniffer for our president. It doesn't make sense. I need therapy. So they're literally driving their own people crazy. And it's kind of funny. All right, here's my update on how to handle trolls online. You've heard some of these, but now I'm going to give you a complete list of what seems to work for me. Probably would work for you, too. So when people says something, say something ridiculous that I know the Democrat corporate media assigned to them, my old way was to tell them that they don't know the truth and their media has duped them, and here's the truth. How well did that work, do you think? Did everybody say, whoa, thank you for correcting my misinformation. I should listen to you more often, Scott, but I got this from MSNBC and I was mistakenly thinking it was true. But thank you for clarifying. I'm all set now. No, that never happens. I think it was Mark Twain who said, the hardest thing to convince somebody of is that they've been duped, used better words. So, yes, you cannot convince people that they've been duped. So what I say, instead of arguing about their stupid facts that are all wrong, I never engage them in their stupid facts. If they have stupid facts, like Trump wants to be a dictator, that kind of stuff. I say, you believe the news is real. That's my whole comment. So I just reply, you believe the news is real. Sometimes I add, lol. Now, sometimes they'll reply, but I think sometimes it's such a biting comment that at some level they understand is, you know, maybe more important than they're letting on, that they on some level might know their news isn't real. I think that believing their own news is maybe closer to a recreational belief for some of them. Like they kind of know it's not exactly true, but it's bad for Trump and they don't like him, so that's good enough for them. But I just say you believe the news is real, or I say you can't really have a conversation with somebody who thinks their news is real. Here's another one that I've told you about. This works great lots of times. I'll get that comment that is so weird that you don't even know if you could address it like you want to because somebody's criticizing you, but you're like, it looks like you just put a bunch of words together there. So whenever it's like that, I just say, you sound drunk. Amazingly, very few people will. Will reply after you say you sound drunk. Do you know why I think that's actually right? I think a lot of them are actually just drunk. You know, if you figure 10% of the country is drunk or inebriated at any given time and they're the ones making the noise. Right. If you walk into a crowded party and then you found out that somebody was causing trouble, is it going to be the drunkest person? Yes. Yeah. Yeah, it's the drunkest person who's causing trouble at the party, but it's also the drunkest person who makes comments that are the crazy type. So, yeah, if they don't look like an obvious page role, I'll get to that. Probably just drunk. Then you don't have this problem. But I do. In the, in the political season, I get the paid trolls. The page trolls have some tells that make them very obvious, but I don't tell them what their tells are, so they don't change them. Because I used to get angry about the, you know, just the, the mean trolls that were just coming in to say a mean thing until I realized they're all, they're all professionals and they all have the same look. I'm just not going to tell you what it is because I don't want to change it because it's fun to spot them. So I just say you have the stench of a paid troll about you. Makes them go away completely because once you out them as paid trolls, they don't want to interact because that would bring more attention to the fact that they're paid trolls. So the moment you say you have this stench of a paid troll, they just disappear because they are, in fact, literally paid trolls. Now, you might not get them, but all the public figures are getting the page rolls. And by the way, that's well documented that the Democrats do that. You know, we know who. Who funds it, who organizes it. It's all well known. Another one I like to do is people like to ask the the are you still beating your spouse question, or one of those questions where the question itself is so biased that answering it would just be a mistake. And I say, ask better questions. You sound like you're trapped in the first level of awareness, and then you just drop the mic and walk away. All right, President Trump, of course, had to explain more fake news about somebody said he didn't like Milwaukee. Of course, that is the way the corporate press works. Somebody who's a Democrat says, oh, somebody said something behind closed doors. We didn't record it or see it. But believe me that Trump said something bad about some group of people, and then that gets in the corporate press, and then the public thinks that actually happened. So the latest one was that Trump didn't like Milwaukee, but as he says in his rally, I love Milwaukee. I was the one that picked Milwaukee for the convention. Republican Convention. I have to tell you, I was the one who picked it. These lying people that they say, oh, he doesn't like Milwaukee. I love Milwaukee. I said, you got to fix the crime. We all know that. You got to make sure the election's honest. But I'm the one that picked Milwaukee. So that's a perfect answer. The damage is still done because the rumor never gets completely corrected, but it's the perfect answer. Let me tell you again how to address a question. When somebody says, you don't like whatever group, in this case it was, you don't like Milwaukee. Here would be the wrong thing to say. I didn't say bad things about Milwaukee. Fail. I don't have bad feelings about Milwaukee. Fail. Do you see what is the right answer? The right answer is. Is only this one. There's only one right answer. It's three words. I love Milwaukee. If you don't start with I love Milwaukee, everything you say after that is just, if somebody says, hey, you hated Milwaukee, don't say, I didn't say that. You say that after. After. You start with I love Milwaukee. Have you noticed that when I talk about my cancellation and since the topic was black people, I like to start that conversation by saying, I love black people. That's the first thing you need to know, it's not about people. It's about a system. It's about dei, it's about crt, it's about propaganda, it's about brainwashing. It's about a system design. If the system is designed to make us toxic to each other, that's the current system design, then you should stay away from toxic situations. It's not about anybody's genes. It's not about anybody's culture. I love black people, right? If you can't say that, well, you're probably guilty of the charge. Say that first. No exceptions. If somebody says you don't like Democrats, say, I love Democrats, I don't like what they do, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. But you got to start with I love X. Unless it's not true. If it's not true, don't say it. Here's another one. I love immigrants. I love immigrants. I also think that deporting 25 million of them might be a reasonable thing to do. But if you don't start with I love them, which I literally do, I mean, I know so many immigrants in California, and they're amazing people, just amazing people. You know, you're missing a lot if you're not interacting with the immigrant community. That's. That's something you might not know if you're sort of reading about it because you read about the crime and the crime's bad and it's real. But if you don't interact with the people, oh, my God, just amazing people from all kinds of different places. So that's what that is when people say, why don't you move out of California? That is one of the draws of California is that you have the diversity. And, you know, that might sound surprising if you believe any of the rumors about me, but it is. One of the best things about living here is that, you know, my. Your tennis partner came from one country. Your, you know, other people you work with from all over the place. It's quite a rich environment, and by and large, they all want to be here. You know, it's great being around people who want to be here. It's great. It's hard for that to go wrong when you're around people who want to be where same country you want to be in. All right? But we do need laws and we do need borders, and maybe we have to deport 25 million people. It would be a tragedy. But a point I was going to make earlier is that Democrats have successfully painted Republicans as the mean people, right? So the Democrats have taught themselves that they're the ones with empathy. And the Republicans are the ones who don't have enough empathy because they're like, ah, ship them home, ship them home. And that's a bad frame. If you're a Republican. Here's the better way to say it. If you're Republican, here's the defense. Democrats say we don't have empathy. I say Democrats don't know how to do empathy correctly. It's not empathy if you let your children, if you let your children run wild because they're free, that's, that's not empathy. You need to give your kids some structure. It's not empathy to let criminals out of jail because you're not being good to the people in the society. And criminals might actually be better off with a little bit of pushback on their worst impulses. You have to learn how to do empathy. And the Democrats are doing it wrong. Short term empathy for long term destruction is not, is not a trade off anybody wants. If you want the real kind of empathy, the kind that lasts, the kind that builds a country that everybody wants to live in, you want to do it the tough love way, that's got some structure, got some rules, and it's a little bit hard on people who want to break those rules. Now, is that unkind? Well, I would suggest that you could look at any city in the country that is run by the blue team at this point and you can see that their empathy has caused massive problems. So the real fake, the real empathy is where you have structure and you give people very clear indications of what is, you know, good and what is bad and you hold them to it. You hold them to being a good citizen. Now, if you don't do that, you have fake empathy. Don't, don't fall for the artificial empathy. You want the good stuff, get the real stuff. That's the way I would handle that. All right, here's the Biden campaign. You know, I always tell you I'm going to try to call balls and strikes when it comes to persuasion. I hate that saying, going to call balls and strikes. I hate myself. Now. Don't say, talk about it around the water, the water cooler. Don't say call balls and strikes. How did that even get in my throat? So I told you I was going to be objective about the persuasion game. And the Biden campaign just hit a frozen rope triple and maybe a home run. So Biden campaign, again, I'm going to talk about this as persuasion. This is not my opinion of what policy should Be. I'll talk about that separately. The persuasion game that Biden did is he picked the most, the group you would be most empathetic to in the immigrant community, which is the spouse of an American. Just think about that now. Or a spouse of an American, or at least somebody who's here legally. Imagine being married to somebody who's an American or is here legally for years, let's say 10 years, and then somebody ships you back to the country you came from. You could be really hardcore on immigration. You could be really hardcore and still have a problem with that because that violates sort of your human sense. I mean, that gets into, you know, if you're, if you're a Republican, there's, you know, there's a level that you're willing to go to, but not beyond. And that pushes really into an uncomfortable zone. So, remember, I'm not arguing what's the good policy. I'm only arguing the political persuasion. So for Biden's team to come up with this idea of the. What are they calling it? Amnesty or making legal. I don't know what word they're using. It's an executive action, but it would make. Make it impossible to deport half a million people who have been living and working in the country for 10 years and are married to somebody here. Now, that is the one group that if you said to me, Scott, if you were going to start, you know, if you were going to start sending people back to their country of origin, if they're not legally here, who would you do first and then who would you do last? Well, I would do this group absolutely last so that I didn't do them at all. Does that make sense? I would put them last to make sure I didn't do them at all. Because if you got rid of 20 million people, let's say there are half a million of these. If you got rid of 20. Not got rid of. That's the wrong word. If you reverse the migration of 24.5 million people and then you said, okay, we're happy with all those, and then you got to that last half million who now had lived here, let's say, you know, it takes a few years now, they've lived here 12 years and they've been married, didn't break the law, they're working and paying taxes, you want to send them back, too? Probably not. Probably not. So what Republicans are good at is acting a little tougher than they're going to be, and that works. So I don't disagree with the fact that you have to act like you're going to be an absolutist about what's legal and what's not. You have to be a little tougher than you're willing to actually be. You know, that's sort of the dad thing. Dad acts a little tougher than dad is on the inside, maybe, but he knows it's good to act tough because you get a better result. So I would say that the Biden campaign, it's fairly genius move because it kind of. It kind of. They can use that to represent their larger argument this week. The larger argument is, hey, look at all these immigrants. They're great. Let's get more of them, keep that border open. They don't say it that way, of course, but if they can, if they can sell that, this little group of people who are good people, let's say they. They met the test except for coming in illegally, they're good people. It's really good persuasion. It's really strong. Now, that doesn't change any of my opinions about locking up the border, but it's a real good job of persuasion. I'm going to give him credit for that. Well, I didn't realize that Matt Gates is under so much fire. He's got that. There's an ethics panel that's issued 25 subpoenas. And I, at first I started to write down all the things they're investigating for, but when you start to write them down, you see it's a laundry list. It's like, oh, all right, yeah, something about women, something about, did he do some recreational drugs? Something about some money, something about some influence. And I'm thinking it just looks like you picked a guy and then took every category of ethics violations and tried to make up something or find something in that category. So every part of this looks like lawfare except the ethics version of it. Within the, Within Congress. Every bit of this looks dirty. They've been studying since 2021, and they got. They got nothing. There's not a single thing that they have with any kind of smoking gun or document or evidence or whistleblower. Nothing, you know, we'd know about it. So. Oh, my God. Everybody in the Ethics Committee needs to be fired through the voting. But can you believe that the Ethics, the House Ethics Committee, is the single most unethical thing operating in the Congress? What would be less ethical than picking a person and finding the crime? That literally comes from Nazi Germany, doesn't it? That literally, that saying about, find the person, I'll show you the crime. I'M pretty sure that's Nazi Germany and that's what the House ethics panel is doing. How do you get more ridiculous than being the most unethical entity in the world? Well, you should be the most respected. So no, I have no respect for them whatsoever. They're clowns. For some reason I don't quite understand, but probably I will soon. Momar Gaddafi is in the news and I guess we're rewriting history about what happened there or why it happened now. I don't know. It's true. I'll just tell you what people are saying. As you know, history is all made up and sometimes history will tell you what happened, but it's always a lie to tell you why. The why things happened is always a lie. The what happened? Well yeah, somebody got killed. Yeah there was a war. So sometimes they get the what right but never the why. That's all made up. So the why of why was Gaddafi killed? One theory is that he was trying to create a petro dollar with a gold backed currency and that would be bad for the US dollar. Another said he wanted to create a United States of Africa and we thought that would be a problem. I think that one's ridiculous. Who in the world is going to create a United States of Africa? Had Gaddafi ever met Africa? Who in the world thinks any of the countries want to join together and become states under a larger entity? That doesn't even sound like a little bit of a good idea. So I don't believe that we were worried that he was going to make all the African countries give up their sovereignty and become states under him. I think that was a very small risk. So I don't believe that one. And then there was a video that apparently he was giving speeches saying the CIA killed Kennedy like 18 months before he got killed. So some are saying ah, it's just from the CIA to make him shut up. But other people are saying, and I this feels like total exaggerations but that before he got killed Libya had no electricity bills, had interest free loans for their citizens and he promised not to buy a house for his parents until all the citizens had houses. Now if those are the only three things you can say about your country, I feel like there might have been some problems. Was Libya just killing it on the, on the standard of living scale? What kind of ridiculousness is this that Libya, the Libyan citizens were doing great? I don't think they were, were they? And if they were doing so great, what's why? Is it that the electricity bills are the things you Want to talk about and interest free loans. I mean those are sort of niches within the can you eat and do you have a job? And what's the violence situation anyway? So I don't believe anything about the Gaddafi story. Don't believe what happened, the official version. I don't believe these versions. I don't know what it was. I mean it could have been they were afraid of terrorism. Could have been he had some information they didn't like. Could have been anything. Anyway, there's a new study that says the way psilocybin works is it gives you brain hyper connectivity. So the idea is if you scan a brain of somebody who's on hallucinogens, specifically psilocybin, that you'll see that their brain is more lit up. More. More parts of the brain are connected to other parts of the brain. Now here's the interesting question I ask you. If we know from the brain scan that under a hallucinogenic experience more of the brain is involved, not less, doesn't that mean that the hallucinogenic experience is the real one and the normal life you're experiencing where only some part of your brain is activating is the fake one? Because wouldn't you expect the one that uses more of your brain in a connected way is seeing something closer to truth? Maybe. I'll tell you, my one good experience under mushrooms is that it felt like I was seeing the truth for the first time. So my experience of it was that my brain lit up and I could see more than I could see before and then I took that with me forever. It's like something you learn and then it's just always there. You don't have to have your brain lit up to see it again. So I just asked the question, is the hallucinogenic state the real reality or a distorted one that you just experienced for a little bit and maybe you get something out of it? I have a feeling it's closer to reality because I don't think that we have this fixed reality. I think it's swirling around, it's a stew of probability and that our brain is just organizing it into neat little boxes that we experience as our life. But the real experience is more fluid and not nearly as little boxes. So that's what I think. Just hypothesis. How many drones do you think Ukraine loses in one month? Let's see how good you are at guessing statistics that nobody told you. All right, how many drones does Ukraine lose in combat every month? Give me a number in the comments while I'm waiting for the comments to catch up. The answer is 10,000. They're using, they're using and, or losing in battle. 10,000 drones per month, that's a lot of drones. I don't know how many they can make. But the news story is the real battle is the jamming. So the Russians apparently became really good, really fast, or maybe they always were at jamming drones. And so the drone makers have to find new frequencies, but then the Russians find that too. And so it's this cat and mouse game of trying to stay ahead of the jamming. But one of the things that they're doing to do that is they're making the drones more autonomous. You see where this is going. The autonomous drones, they're not going to get jammed in terms of the gps, which is what they try to jam. They're going to, they're going to know where they are from maybe wherever the last GPS signal that was accurate. And then they're going to look at the ground and maybe compare it to some internal maps and say, oh, I must be around here. But here's the obvious next step. It's AI, right? And it's facial recognition. You will soon have the ability to send a swarm of AI driven autonomous drones into a territory that will decide on its own if something looks like a Russian soldier, and then it'll kill it on its own. And it will have to decide, oh, that's a civilian and that's not. Which actually will be safer for civilians. Because I think I, I think if you and I are looking at, you know, aerial photography, it's hard to tell who's a, you know, who's a bad guy and who isn't. But the drone can go right down to street level. If, if the drone is wondering if somebody's a combatant or not, the drone can just fall right down to street level and take a look in their face, do facial recognition, or if it has good cameras, it can do it from, you know, where it is in the sky. But imagine if you could recognize a face. I don't know how many Russian soldiers are on social media. Is it most. Because at this point, the facial recognition companies have already scraped all the social media in Russia, meaning that we have the name to match every face of every soldier, I would think, except a few that don't have social media. So I would think that the facial recognition could go right up to him and say, you look bad. Boop, bullet in the head, go back to work. And, and I think they could even linger. Now imagine if you had a drone that could do all of that and also had a solar way to recharge itself with solar. So after it does its mission, it doesn't leave the battlefield. It just goes up somewhere high in parks, let's say, on top of a building just recharges and it's already there and it just goes back into the fight. Well, drone warfare is where it's all at, ladies and gentlemen. It's also suspected that the reason the Russians are not making better progress and maybe the reason that Putin had to go to North Korea, where he just went, is to get some extra help, maybe get some extra shells or military production, and that they, they don't seem to have gained much ground. And it seems that it's the drones that are keeping people on their lines. I think it's funny that Democrats don't know that most of the problems that Trump is being accused of in this campaign were actually created artificially by Biden. The, the low information voters don't know that the charges against Trump are just political. To them, it looks like, well, he must be a crook. So as Byron York is pointing out in a post on X, the Biden campaign is going to spend $50 million on ad campaign to say that Trump's been convicted of a bunch of felonies and found liable for sexual assault and he committed financial fraud, according to them. Now, I ask you this. Somebody else mentioned this, too. Is there anybody who doesn't know these facts? Well, there might be some people who have sort of generally heard that the president had some legal problem or Trump had some legal problems. And so it might be, it might be effective if they just keep calling him a criminal. But I think most people who follow politics and plan to vote have already discounted all of it. This. So it seems to me that the Biden campaign is putting $50 million into an approach that could only be working for the fake. Because people, the people want to be told a reason not to support Trump because they just feel like they don't want to, but they need a reason, so the campaign gives them cover. Oh, yeah, you've all heard it. It's all these legal problems. Why do you want to, why do you want this guy with all these legal problems to be your president? Anybody smart knows all the legal problems came literally from Biden and were assigned to Trump, but it might be a good play. So if you imagine that people are well informed and rational, this wouldn't work at all. But if you assume people are really not paying attention to the details of the legal stuff, which they're not most people, then if you're just reminded he's a criminal, it gives you that fake reason to dislike him. So it might work. Trump came out in his rally again. He's. He's been pro bitcoin, but he, he's emphasizing it, and Vivek is boosting that in. In on X. And I'm wondering if Trump hasn't at least heard of, or floated or considered some kind of massive debt control measure that has a crypto element to it. Now, I wish I were smarter and then I could tell you how that could work. The only thing I know for sure is if you can make money out of nothing called crypto, and we've got a. And people will recognize it as money. I feel like there's a way to make money out of nothing to pay down the actual money debt, you know, the, the physical debt, the dollar debt. I don't know. I just. It just feels like there's something there. Now, as soon as you think of that, you say, oh, but all the problems that would cause in different ways, to which I'd say, yes, but the alternative is that the country fails completely. So we're going to have choices between really risky things and complete destruction, for sure. We're not going to have any safe path out of the debt. That. That's not a thing. So I think having Trump being pro crypto, at least in terms of bitcoin, probably is a really good thing. And we might not realize how good it is until somebody figures out how to make all this work. All right. What I'd love to find out is that the US government bought Bitcoin at 10 cents and holds a whole bunch of it. We don't know. And then it just pays off the debt with bitcoin. I don't think that's going to happen, but it'd be funny. According to Rasmussen, 44% of the likely voters think Attorney General Garland should be removed from office and sent to jail for refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas. I think when political people are in the news like that, it's more just team play. So I don't even know if people understand the whole Garland refusing the congressional subpoena thing. But on the same. At the same time, Thomas Massie has introduced some legislation that would. How do they say, would make the res. It would make Pelosi's January 6th select committee illegitimate. So the idea is it's. It would be an active Congress to nullify the criminal charges against Bannon Navarro, Mark Meadows, and Scavino for contempt of Congress. And the way it would do that is by, I guess, affirming that the process was illegitimate and therefore it doesn't have subpoena power. And the. And the House would formally take it away. Now, here's my question. This is either a real big deal that you wonder why it took so long, or it's not going to work. I haven't heard the it's not going to work argument yet. Are there, are there Republicans who would vote against this? Is there any way that Republicans would not be 100% in favor of it? I assume there might be some rebels out there, but why wouldn't this just fly right through and it doesn't have to go to the Senate and doesn't have to go to the president because the authority for the committee came from the House, so the House can invalidate it. All right. Wow. Okay. So we'll see if that happens. Now, if this works and the Navarro gets released and Bannon gets freed and all that, you're going to say, why didn't you do it sooner? And you're also, you're also going to say what I say. And by the way, I always mock people who say, why didn't you do it sooner? Anything that's good, you should just be happy about it. Everything good should have been done sooner. So it's sort of a generic universal complaint, and therefore I would ignore it. All right, well, we've got six. I'm just looking at the number of live viewers. So we've got 6700 on YouTube rumbles at 1.7, 1700, locals at close to 800. Oh, wait, no, that's the total. YouTube is 4, 000, rumble is 1.7 and locals is about 800 live. Anyway, so I got this suggestion today by DM. I'm not, not going to mention where it came from just because I'm going to modify it enough that I don't want to blame somebody else for my own bad ideas. But the idea was that it might be time to make the Republicans seem cool, because in the past, the Republicans were the uncool party and the Democrats were the cool people and that maybe the situation has reversed and it would be, it would behoove Republicans to just make Trump seem cooler and the Republicans seem cooler. Now, the problem here is you've all seen the Steve Buscemi meme where he's pretending to be a young person saying, hello, young people, I'm one of you. It's a Joke, because he's obviously not a young person. And I think the risk here is, it would seem pathetic if the Republicans start running campaigns to tell you they're cool. Do not do that. Do not. Do not. Do not. Do you know what's cool? Let me tell you what's cool. Somebody being exactly themselves and being true to their. Their brand and their nature and not caring if the world is against them. That's cool. That's Trump walking into the UFC and getting a standing ovation. That's cool. Without trying. If you can't get to cool without trying, you can't get there. Because if you have to try to get to cool, well, everybody sees that. You know, that's the Steve Buscemi thing. You look like you're trying to be cool, which is literally the least cool thing ever. Do you think that Trump being a felon makes him cool? Maybe, but I wouldn't say it. I would just let people come to that conclusion, that he's edgy, he is being attacked by the system, and he's surviving, and he's not changing. He's still Trump. And that is so seductive, because we're. We always think that the system, you know, could crush us. If you watch somebody who starts down as Trump, the system tries to crush him like no system has ever tried to crush anybody. And when he comes out the other side, the system is broken, and he's still Trump. You can't get cooler than that. That's as cool as you can get. I would also note that what seems cool to men might be different from what seems cool to women. Of course, there's lots of overlap, and of course, there are lots of exceptions. But generally speaking, a standing ovation at the UFC really touches men. Some women. Some women would feel it, too. But whatever it is that makes somebody cool to women is not that. So I think that Trump simply doing Trump is the smartest thing anybody ever did. If they wanted to look cool, just be Trump. You don't have to change a thing. He's changing us. That's cool. Meaning that he started out with mean tweets that even people like me said, you know, in the beginning. Ah, I see. It's persuasive, but maybe you ought to pull back on that a little bit. Now. He's been Trump for so long and so successfully that when he mocks, you know, Pritzker or somebody and just does it viciously, you just say to yourself, oh, that's cool. That's Trump. He made mean tweets. Cool. Not because he told you they were cool. He never told you that. He just kept doing them. And when you said he should stop doing them, he kept doing them. And when you said you should really, really, really stop doing them, he kept doing them. And when Republicans, people on his own team said, you got to stop doing these mean tweets, he kept doing them. And when he came out the other side, everybody else decided mean tweets weren't that bad after all and actually worked pretty well. And Trump was exactly the same as he went into it. You can't get cooler than that. You can't get cooler than making the system change every time they try to change you. That's it. That's the pinnacle. So I suggested that maybe trying to make Trump be cool would be gilding the lily or trying to do something that's going to happen on its own. You don't have to try. Instead, I would go this way. Have you ever noticed that if you're dating a woman, let's say you're the, in the dating world, that it seems really important what car you drive. Do you know why that is? Now the, the easy answer might be, well, you know, it's a sign of success and people like success and women are drawn to it. So the car is just a symbol of your success? Yeah, there's that, there's that. But I think there's a better way to explain the problem to women. The, the boyfriend or husband's automobile is their accessory. So you should think of the car they get into the same way they think of the clothes they put on, the hairstyle they chose and the jewelry they're wearing. It's an accessory. It's being associated with their body, literally their body. And so when a woman gets near a beat up old car, even if she really, really likes that guy, there's going to be a lot of pushback not to be seen in that car because it's, it just makes the woman look less, you know, it's like, it's like having bad jewelry, bad clothing, bad haircut, you're in a bad car. Now take that, that association. You know, the fact that we're influenced by association with things, and if we are associated with something good, you feel good. If you're associated with something bad, you feel bad. And think about a young woman having to associate herself with Joe Biden. How comfortable is that as an accessory? It's really uncomfortable. And here's how you can make it worse. I would label the Democrats as dementia Grats. You know, everybody likes to come up with fun, fun names for the other team. That is like a play on words. For a while I was doing Democrats, but they're not dumb, not, not in terms of, you know, iq. They just have different news, so it didn't feel like it fit. They just have an abusive news situation that makes them appear dumb when their IQs are fine. So I think dementiacrat is lethal, persuasion wise, because it makes, it makes people understand that their accessory is a dementia addled old man. I'm going to judge you by him. I'm not going to judge Trump. I'm not just going to judge Biden. I'm going to say, you picked him. He, he's on you now. They say the same thing to me and to anybody who's pro Trump. They say, hey, if you vote for Trump, you're gonna have to wear that. You don't get to just vote and walk away. You're a Trump supporter, you're a maggot. They'll say, you're a maggot. I think we need to borrow that because one of the things that I like most about Trump supporters is that when somebody calls them a maggot, racist, sexist, they can look right at you and say, you don't bother me. You sound drunk. Your stupid silo opinions are not my problem. I love that. I love that about Trump supporters, Republicans in general to some extent. But it's really a characteristic of Trump supporters that you can take the most abusive treatment and you can look them in the eye and say, nice try, you. I love that. Now let's see if the, let's see if the young ladies who are supporting Biden can get there. Can they get there? Or do you think that showing them as with Biden as their accessory is going to make them just puke? I think it will make them physically ill if you said, you know who you are, you are him. You can't vote for him and walk away. You vote for Joe Biden. You are a dementiacrat. There's no getting around the fact that both Democrats and Republicans, we all see it. He's a dementia addled, decomposing half a human. If that's who you want to be. Your earrings, we're going to hang it off your ears. You're going to be a dementia cat. And here's what I would do that would be the most devastating. You could take any, any regular voter if there was a way to do this. I hope it's not illegal. If it's illegal, don't do it. But I'll Just talk about this as persuasion. If you took a picture of Biden at his most, dementia adult, whatever still picture tells that story the best. You know, we see all the pictures of him looking like a demon just entered him through his ass. And you put that in a split screen with the voter. Now I'm not talking about famous people, just a voter and a young woman. It won't work with the guys, maybe the gay guys, I don't know, I don't know how that works. But the women, I want their picture to be right next to them and, and I want the label to say dementiacrat and that's it. If you show a 25 year old woman a picture of herself next to a picture of Biden looking dementia adult and then you label it dementiacrat and you talk about the voter, not Biden, that's devastating because that's where you know it's, it's your boyfriend's bad car. Yeah, that's what Biden is. Biden is your boyfriend's beat up wreck. And if you want to get in it, people are going to judge you. When you get out of it. When you, when you pull up to the restaurant and you get out of the beat up car, people are going to judge you. And Democrats don't like being judged. So if, if you have something that your, your side is invulnerable to, such as being called names, then you want to drag them into your fight. Let's see if they like it. Now the names that people call Democrats are too generic. Remember when, when the insult to Democrats used to be you're a liberal. I used to laugh at that all the time. It's like that's the best you can do. You're a liberal. Oh, it's a dirty word. You're a liberal. None of them cared about that. But you're a dementia crap. And here's you with your new accessory. How do you like your jewelry? It's a hundred year old man who shit his pants. That's your jewelry. Go wear that in public because the Trump supporters don't mind what you call them. If you want to play in that game, here's your accessory, Dementia gratitude. All right, there's an MB and MSNBC host. Now I remind you that MSNBC is like a, a humor channel for people like politics. Wherever is the craziest behavior of just batshit crazy. It's going to be on msnbc. And if, and if you've not been hypnotized into their little world, it's just fascinating to watch so one of their hosts said that black voters are moving toward Trump because they are susceptible to misinformation. Now, not uniquely susceptible, simply susceptible. And that it's a misinformation problem. Do you think that's the problem? No, it's because they're escaping from misinformation. They're escaping from misinformation. Do you think that any of the black men who are moving to Trump believe that he called neo Nazis. Fine people. No. That's an escape from misinformation. But interestingly, part of that conversation on MSNBC is that the black men and the black women are perceiving things differently. Here it comes. Remember I told you I was gonna just drive it all summer long that it's a male, female difference? Because once that. Once that narrative becomes a common one, it's the end. Yeah, the. The woman party won't. Won't win in America, especially if it's the mentally ill women party, which it is. Like, literally, there's massive mental illness among the young women who are Democrats. Now, partly they've done it to themselves, and maybe partly there's something else going on there. But now we see on MSNBC that they're noting that men and women are acting differently and that the men are moving toward Trump. That is exactly the same frame you're going to see on the Five on Fox News. So the same narrative. Wait a minute. Maybe this is little less about black and white, and maybe it's a little bit more like men and women. As soon as that picture becomes bigger, the entire operation on the left will fall apart. And it's really close. Push, push, push. All right. And then the campaign communications director for Biden was on the show, Michael. Michael Tyler is his name, and he said, quote, I do think that this idea that there's going to be a wave of black voters voting for Donald Trump is highly unlikely, because black Americans know that Donald Trump is a racist. What? Oh, what. What would be the evidence for that? The fine people hoax. The only evidence for that claim is that the Democrats literally just made up and then tried to brainwash their citizens. I think that black American men just never believed it or don't believe the news at all. So that's what I think. July 1st is when Steve Bannon's supposed to go to jail and we don't know where he would end up. Rikers or there's another one that's being talked about, but apparently Bannon and his misdemeanor are going to be in jail with dangerous criminals. Dangerous criminals. Now, here's the question. This is just a recreational thing to think about. I want the best for Steve Bannon. I don't want him to go to jail. And if he goes to jail, I want him to survive and do as well as you can in jail. So, but here's a funny thought. And if, if you've seen the, the Glenn Greenwald conversation with, with Tucker, you'll have some context for this. And I do recommend that you see it. And here's, here's what I think could happen. Ben and is a celebrity. And even if you hate him, you know, even if you're a Democrat, he's still a celebrity. And he has a certain personality that is not elite, but he has the common person touch. He also has a lot of charisma, which is why he's Steve Bannon and you're not. You put him in a prison. Even with hardened criminals, I think they're going to be friends when they get out. That's what I think. Now, of course, anything can happen, and I'm no expert on prisons. So if there's just, you know, a gang thing or a racial thing, who knows? You know, so it's a dangerous situation. But I think that if the toughest Democrat of any demographic group comes up to Steve Bannon and starts talking to him, he's going to walk away saying, you know, actually, he's kind of cool. I think. I think he's actually going to change them more than they're going to have an effect on him. And I think that when he comes out, he will have turned half of the jail into Trump voters. There might be a story that everybody who came into contact with Steve Bannon turned into a Trump supporter in whatever month he's in there. Because if you think about it, it would be the first time they're hearing real news. Think about that. And his story is the people in charge have been lying to you, and you're probably here for the wrong reasons, like I am. He is going to. He is going to bond with those prisoners so hard that he might leave them Republicans when he's done as a real thing. I mean, I actually think that's going to happen. How much of it happens? I don't know. Maybe it's just his roommate. He switches, but her cellmate. But I think he's going to flip some votes while he's in jail. And if he does that, it's going to be the greatest story of all time. Like, all we need is, here's what I want. Here's My dream news. My dream news. Of course, I don't want Bandit to go to jail, but if it happens, the, the best case situation is that even before he gets out, there's somebody else who gets released first who is with him, you know, in the same cell block and says, you can't believe what's happening. He just turned the whole cell block Republican. Oh, God. I want to hear that, because I think it's going to happen in the real world. I think he's going to turn his cell block Republican. All right, Eric Weinstein had a great thread of. He gets a lot of questions about, quote, what explains his asymmetric focus on Democrats and the left. In other words, people in his life and maybe on social media are saying, why are you always so tough on the Democrats? You know, it seems like there would be plenty of ammunition to be tough on the Republicans. Fair question. And it's a question which gets asked of me in various ways as well. But Eric's answer to it is so close, I mean, really identical to my opinion that it's very much worth calling out. I'll give you the short version of it, but he gives lots of examples, and the examples is what makes it strong. But the short answer is, well, these are his exact words. The short answer, after some soul searching and introspection, is simply this. The gaslighting of experts. The gaslighting of experts. In other words, the gaslighting coming from the experts. And he says that's not happening from Republicans. Republicans are not supporting a whole bunch of fake experts who are telling you things that are just clearly not true. And lots of people are involved in doing it. And it's a whole op involves the corporate media and the Democrats and the CIA and everything else. There's nothing like that happening on the Republican side. Now, you've heard me say this, right? My version of this, he, he does a much better job of, you know, saying a complete thought. My version of this is that when Republicans are wrong, which happens a lot, you know, I'm not going to excuse it. I think Republicans are wrong a lot and they, they create some fake news during the political season, but it's usually individuals. It's just somebody sees something on social media and other people pick it up and it's a bad source and stuff like that, but it's like, you know, it's organic, but the Democrats are running ops, just one op after another that are run from the top. You know, it's the president, it's the top 50 security people in the country. You know, the intelligence people signing a fake document. It's the fake Russia collusion is everything about the pandemic that was fake, all the fake doctors. And he's right, he's right. You cannot compare Republicans and Democrats as like a political difference. And like, oh, they both lie. That's not what's happening. Yes, yes, there's lies from both sides and there's incorrect stuff from both sides, but one side does it as a scheme. That's just not happening on Republicans. And I think the difference is principle. I think the difference is principle. What's a different way to say that? It's a system versus a goal. I, I think the Democrats are goal driven. Got to get rid of Trump, and then everything that does that is fine, right? It's a goal, get rid of Trump. That's the only goal. If you only have one goal, then anything you do to get it is going to look pretty good. The Republicans are principle driven. They can't bring themselves to lie as hard as it would take to compete with that stuff. The, the Republicans are not going to create like a whole, a structure of fake news to fool you into voting wrong. That would be the opposite of the Republican philosophy that you should all be well informed and the Constitution rules and we should do something like a republic slash, you know, with Democratic principles. And as soon as you get outside that model, you lose Republicans immediately. Except for the very worst criminals, I suppose. But the regular Democrats are all on board with using lawfare to take out Trump, even if it's illegitimate, so long as it gets the job done. So if you're living in a world where all that matters is the goal, and you've been told the goal is get rid of Hitler, then every bad behavior and any amount of collusion, coordination, scheming, and plotting is all fine. And by the way, if we were really getting rid of Hitler, I'd be fine with it, too. That would be the exception. But as soon as Republicans see that they're getting outside the lines, their, their natural Republican instinct is, oh, I don't want to become a bad person to get a good result. In fact, it's the biggest problem that the, the Republicans have where they operated on principle with abortion and risked their entire everything on principle. That was a hell of a thing, by the way. You should be proud of that. Now, I'm not giving you my opinion of abortion because I think women should work it out. So I'm on a whole different page from all of you, but just hold that in your mind how desperately Republicans wanted to win and they couldn't let abortion go. They were literally willing to die on that principle that you can't kill innocent life. As they see it, that is pretty solid stuff. You, you can disagree with it, you know, like, what's the best law to have? You can say that you like your, you would prefer to have abortion be legal, but you can't say the Republicans don't operate on principle to their own destruction. Yeah. If you're not going to operate it on it, on it to the point of your own destruction, then it's not really a principle, is it? This is another Glenn Greenwald story. He was talking about the aclu. And do you remember the aclu? The, in the old days, they supported the Nazis who tried to do a rally in Skokie, I guess, and the aclu, who was you thought was going to defend the good people, said, no, this is a free speech thing. And so a largely Jewish organization funded largely by Jewish donors, this is, according to Greenwald, supported Nazis. And it became like the main thing that the ACLU was known for. And it destroyed the entire organization. They lost all their funding. A bunch of people had to quit. It basically became a shell of its former self because it stood on principle. Now, what do we think about that when we look at it in the past? Well, with admiration and, and with love. That there was somebody who traded everything for free speech. Nobody likes the Nazis. Well, except the Nazis. But there was one, one person who. Well, a number of people who said, yeah, we're going to die in this Hill. And then they did. They died on, you know, professionally and career wise and reputationally they died on it. And then what was it that reconstituted the aclu? Why is it a big robust entity at the moment? Well, it looks like it's just a captured Democrat, his squad like the other captured Democrat hit squads. So now they got plenty of funding because it looks like they might do some bad stuff to Trump and Republicans. So now it's not what it used to be. It's the opposite. All right. If you didn't see Senator Josh Hawley grilling the Boeing CEO, it is, wow, it's hard to watch because. Well, here's the basics. So the Boeing CEO has to explain why there's all these whistleblowers and safety concerns and recent accidents of the vehicles. And Senator Hawley says, how much do you make? And then when he wouldn't answer directly, Holly said, It's 33 million, isn't it? He goes, yeah, that's right. So his annual pay, the CEO, is $34 million. And Holly says, what do they pay you for? He goes, did you make profits? He says, no, we've never made profits while I've been CEO. So they're not paying you for profits because you haven't done any. Are they paying you for safety? Oh yes, they're definitely paying me for safety. Well, you didn't get safety. It's getting less safe. So why are they paying you if you're making it less safe and you're not making money? What's the job of a CEO? That's why we, that's why they pay you. Can you explain? And he wouldn't leave it alone. He was like, you need to explain why they pay you. If it's not safety, it's not money. Why is it? Now, of course this is, you know, why do you beat your spouse? Kind of a question. It's meant to embarrass him in public, but wow, he did a good job of embarrassing in public the CEO. To his credit, you don't get into that job until you have some tough skin. So he did as well as you could do. But he had nothing. I mean, he had nothing. He just tried to change the subject a little bit and got beat up some more and tried to weave and dodge and got beat up some more. It could have been worse because he, you know, he kept his outward demeanor at least a little bit consistent. But man, he got destroyed. Wow. And, and, and Holly asked directly, why haven't you been fired if you can't even explain what you do, why did they pay you? It was a hell of an attack, persuasion wise. Now you could say it's grandstanding and accomplish nothing, which it probably was. And it probably accomplished nothing. So there's some new reports that China is helping out, crack down on some fentanyl stuff and they, they helped grab some guy who was accused of fentanyl trafficking over there and they, they're shutting down websites that are trying to sell it and they're trying to change the laws so the precursors are illegal, which we've asked them to do. Etc. So that's all going great, right? Isn't it great that China is really cracking down on all that fentanyl? None of that's real. None of that's real. There might have been one crook who didn't give a kickback to a Chinese government officials, so they locked them up. That's probably what happened. There might be some websites that are competing with the one that they want to sell the most that might be happening. Right? So I don't trust anything on this topic, especially in China. But one claim from a article on Hot Air is that China is giving tax breaks to the illegal drug trade. They're getting tax breaks. And people, I don't know if that's true either, but I would warn you not to believe anything about China cracking down on fentanyl. Don't believe a bit of it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is all I had to do, all I had to say today. Sorry I ran long. And I'm gonna say goodbye to the people on X and rumble and YouTube and I'm gonna stick around and talk to my beloveds on local. Thanks for joining. I'll see you tomorrow. And don't forget to buy my new book, which I'm sure you've all bought by now. It's new, but it's a compilation of my Gods to Bree and the Religion War, which you'll find prescient, written long time ago, and a new short story that wraps up the Avatar sequence. All right, everybody, thanks for joining. Locals, here I come.