Discover Representative (0:00)

Are you still quoting 30 year old movies? Have you said cool beans in the past 90 days? Do you think Discover isn't widely accepted? If this sounds like you, you're stuck in the past. Discover is accepted at 99% of places that take credit cards nationwide. And every time you make a purchase with your card, you automatically earn cash back. Welcome to the now it pays to Discover. Learn more@discover.com credit card based on the February 2024 Nelson report.

Scott Adams (0:36)

Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization. Now I don't like to over promise and underd deliver, but I'm pretty sure this will be the best live stream you see today, maybe in your whole life. Oh yeah, we're going to make some news today. Even if nobody talks about it, it's going to be news to us. And if you'd like to enjoy this amazing, amazing event that's upcoming, well, all you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or jealousy. And a canteen. Jogger flask. A vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure. The dopamine. The end of the day, the thing makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip and happens now. Oh, oh, so satisfying. Well, there's so much news and so much persuasion coming that I'm just going to jump right into it. First story. A gray whale. NBC News says a gray whale that is extinct from the Atlantic for more than 200 years was spotted off the New England coast. So the whale which is extinct for 200 years was spotted off the New England coast. I can only assume that whales have developed time travel abilities sometime in the past and are now reappearing in the future. Time traveling gray whales. I can't think of any other explanation for how something extinct could suddenly be here again. Star Trek Time traveling whales. Yeah, there's something about the starship Enterprise probably is related to this story. Anyway, here's a theory I heard the other day. I just want to run past you. I'm not going to say that this is scientifically proven, but it sounds like it might be and it matches my personal experience. And the idea was that a man doesn't have the ability to be happy, not even the ability, unless in close physical contact with women who could reproduce. Now, the second level of this is women who could reproduce. And that excludes people who would be on the pill. And the idea is that women put off a, I don't know, pheromone or some kind of thing in the air that men pick up. And even if they're not conscious of it being affecting them, that they know they're in the presence of something that could be a reproduction situation, even if nobody's thinking, could be your best friend or something, doesn't have to be somebody you actually think you could get with. But just the chemistry of it would make men happy and they wouldn't know why. Now, men in the comments, can you tell me or not tell me that you feel visibly healthier? Healthier, which always equates to happier healthier when you're in the physical presence of women that you believe could reproduce, even if you have nothing to do with them. They could just be customers or people you work with. It could be your boss, could be anybody. Believe the yeses. A line of yeses. Now some of it might be psychological too, you know, if you feel you're around it mentally, maybe that stimulates you as well. I've always had the fear of living at a retirement village. Do you know what I mean? And this was actually the fear. I've never said this before. I had a fear of not being around people who were capable of reproduction because I thought it would affect my body chemistry and my health. I actually thought it would affect my health. So I would say that's not a proven scientific thing, at least not that I know of. But it definitely feels like it's true. So for what that's worth, the Babylon Bee continues to be hilarious. They did a joke where they showed some what looked like ballot boxes installed next to the next to the border fence. Now it's a real funny picture, you know, a bunch of. Because it's. Because the ballot boxes there are like multiple of them. As if you had put multiple ballot boxes right next to each other in a line right in front of the fence. Now here's the funny part. Even though in the age of AI it was really obvious, it was photoshopped or something really obvious because it's a comedy site, they don't really need to hide anything. But apparently Reuters contacted them to find out if the photo was real. And you get to say to yourself, oh, I don't think that could get get any better, can it? That feels like a complete story, doesn't it? You know, the story is that an obviously fake picture. And Reuters, who's also famous for being fake news, couldn't tell the difference. So I'm done with that story. Right. Nothing else to say about that. Well, it turns out that the editor in chief Kyle Mann responded to Reuters when they asked if it was a real picture. And he said, and I quote, he said, quote, we went down to the border and took that picture. So it is true. Hope this helps. Slow clap, slow clap. Nicely done, Babylon. Be nicely done. Well, let's give an update on what I call World War Musk. As you know, our government has a all of government approach to destroying Elon Musk using every agency and legal and political tool that they have. Now, we don't know it's coordinated, do we? It just seems coincidental that everybody in the world and all the news stories are suddenly negative. Well, here's a story. Let's see if you can guess whether this is organic or part of World War Musk. The news says that far left extremists have claimed responsibility for an arson attack on Tesla's Berlin car factory and that 100 militants are occupying an area next to the factory to prevent further construction. Maybe, maybe there are a hundred people who decided that the best thing they can do from their far left extremist position is to destroy an electric car company. Because that makes sense, right? Far left extremists are going to go after the single biggest solution in their own philosophy, that the world needs to be saved from climate change. So that's completely natural. Nobody paid them to do that or anything, right? I don't know. There's no way to know. But I would say in the context of a all of government approach to destroying Elon Musk and his businesses that when I see far left extremists trying to burn down a green technology, I do not say to myself that happened on its own. To me that looks like our intelligence people getting to other countries. Intelligence people and bribing some street muscle. Because we do know that the most normal thing intelligence groups do is they coordinate with bad people to make bad things happen so they can do what they need to do behind the scenes. So I'm going to say that the working assumption is that our own intelligence agencies are behind that. I don't know that it's true. I don't have any specific evidence. But within the whole of government approach to attacking in the World War Musk seems like a logical assumption. Is my working assumption does mean it's true. Well, I've come up with a new meme which is just myself and I'd like to. I'm going to use it a lot today. So it just involves me saying this coming. No. What? Well, I didn't see that coming. Yeah, it's what I Didn't see that coming. We may have a use for that. As I go on. That's for all the stories where you go, what? I didn't see that coming. And you're all welcome to use it. You'll probably use it a lot. Let's see if there's any stories that that would fit. And, oh, so there's a story that allegedly a Chinese national was arrested for allegedly stealing a bunch of AI secrets from Google, our most important future technology stolen by Google the same week that people are saying, you know, we should probably really, really increase our security about this AI if it's actually so dangerous. But turns out, allegedly that a Chinese national stole a bunch of AI secrets, and I saw a list of what he might have stolen. It is the good stuff, in case you're wondering if he got stuff like, oh, I don't know, the phone number, list of the company or something. No, no, it's the good stuff he got. Gave it right to China. Now, what would we say about a story about that? What? Well, I didn't see that coming. The most predictable story in the entire world. Let me see if I can do another one. I predict that within the next five years, the Pope will say in public he is opposed to war. Yeah, yeah, you can set your clock by that one. Bank on it. Bank on it. That's just the kind of political prognosticator I am. All right, let's see. Have you ever noticed that the Democrat Party feels like a military now? Like they have all these units. Military units, but it's like a misfit army. Let me give you some ideas. So if you imagine the Democrats like a military unit of misfits, they would have different divisions for different things. So some of them are what I call the hoax engineers. So there's somebody who comes up with, what's their new hoax? Right. Because they always have a new one. And that usually seems to be Hillary. Have you noticed that? It doesn't become a common hoax until Hillary says it. So Hillary is apparently the hoax engineer. You know, it's like the. If this were a regular military, it would be like the Corps of engineers who build the bridges and build stuff. But Hillary builds the hoaxes and then announces them. And then the people that I call the Turd Caucus weigh in. Now, the Turd Caucus are the people who will say things on television that even other Democrats would be too embarrassed to say because it's so obviously bs. So that would be people like Raskin and Swalwell and Schiff. It's a longer list. But if you ever see one of those Raskin, Swalwell or Schiff, they're just members of the turd caucus. So first Hillary engineers a hoax and then the turd Caucus, because they have no shame whatsoever, will say, well, that's true. It's totally true. Yep, we saw it ourselves. I was in the shift and I saw it. That's totally true. That's the turd caucus. But then another division comes in to kind of solidify the gains. And I call that the send in the clowns division. So the clowns would be the ones who you literally laugh out because you can't believe they're even saying it. So that would be like Corinne Jean Pierre. When you watch Corinne Jean Pierre, don't you actually think clown Now? There have been so many memes about her being a clown that I only see her as a clown now. Like, I see clown, clown, clown, clown. It's like Austin Powers, you know, moley, moley, moley. Every second she's on there, the word clown is in my head. Clown, clown, clown. Looks like it. Acts like it couldn't possibly be a serious employee. But I would add to the clowns. Morning Joe. Have you seen the latest Morning Joe where Morning Joe says in his most passionate, passionate voice that Joe Biden is the most mentally capable he has ever been in his entire list. He keeps getting better with age and at the moment, he is at his peak. The best. He's the best Biden he's ever been. That's right. Morning Joe looked into the camera and said that with passion. Now, you're not going to laugh at that. That's one of the funniest things I've seen. You couldn't possibly take that seriously. It's the clowns, right? How about the View? The ladies of the View, don't they feel like clowns? Don't we watch them for entertainment? If you see that the View is trending, it's because they were clowns. Always. It's always because they're clowns. If you see MSNBC is trending, what's the story going to be about every time? Clowns literally on X. If MSNBC is trending, it's because they did something so stupid that you're gonna laugh at it. I'm like, oh, this is gonna be good. I always click on that. Yeah, Clowns. How about Joy trumpair Reid? Does she seem like a serious commentator or does she seem like a clown? She feels like a clown. How about Rachel Mad now. Yeah, Rachel. She's Mad now about racial things. Does she seem like a serious commentator at this point? Not really. She doesn't come across that way. So I actually watch MSNBC for the laughs and that's not a joke. Has anybody else got to that point where you can watch it just because you know it's funny? You're not there yet. You're still disgusted, right? I think you can get there. I'm going to try to get you there so you can enjoy it. It's disgusting if you're feeling it for its effects on society, which are negative. But once you realize that they're clowns, then you can kind of enjoy it. All right, what about the. If they were a military, the Democrats, wouldn't they need some kind of military intelligence? Well, they got one. I'd say Brennan and Clapper act as sort of the lead of whatever the intelligence connection is to the news. So they've got their own spooks. What about street muscle? You're going to need some muscle if you're military. Well, they did have Black Lives Matter in Antifa and they will have whatever new people they're paying for this cycle. Maybe they'll get some of those German extremists. They may already be on the payroll. So they got street muscle like a good military. Then they've got the Soros banker. So Soros can get a bunch of local DAs elected so they can create kangaroo courts to lock up the dissenters. For example, Blaze journalist Steve Baker, he's being locked up by the Soros prosecutors, I think for simply just existing and covering an event on January 6th. No indication he did anything illegal. He was just there covering it. So the Soros prosecutors, kangaroo court that are part of the Democrat army are looking to put him away. And then there's the media cover up crew. So I would say that would be like cnn, Washington Post Axios. And MSNBC is more of a clown car. But the ones who act serious would be like cnn, Washington Post. Now once you see all the entities of their basically a military operation, it's kind of well organized. They also have like special forces. The special forces would be like the ADL or the SPLC or these watchdog groups that are completely illegitimate and basically operate as a paramilitary for the Democrats and the NGOs. They all operate like special forces. So that's what they got going on over there. Let's see what Rachel Madd now said. So MSNBC made the terrible mistake of airing Trump's victory speech after Super Tuesday. Did anybody watch that? So I happened to Be watching it live when they cut to his speech. And I thought, oh, when are they going to turn this off? They're not going to let him talk. And he starts just going after the fake news. And they had to actually air Trump telling MSNBC their viewers were watching fake news, basically. I mean, not by name, but that's basically what he was saying. And they kept it on. But when they came back, Rachel mad now had to tell the viewers that it's irresponsible of news organizations to carry former Carry Trump's remarks when they know he's going to make false statements. Think about that as standard. The standard is you can't put somebody on when you know he's going to make false statements because they're a news business now. How is that not comedy? That's pure comedy. You can't take that seriously. She actually tried to convince her viewers that the other stuff they put on the air is true. It was only the other day they had somebody on, literally in person in the studio trying to tell the fine people hoax. I wish I knew the name of the Republican who slapped him down. It was really fun to watch. So msnbc, I think it was yesterday, made the mistake of putting a Haley supporter on the air, assuming that a Haley supporter would say bad things about Trump. Right? That's a pretty good assumption. But it turns out that the Haley supporter was nothing but a good Republican. And when I say good Republican, I mean when they said, so are you going to say bad things about Trump or whatever, he said, you know what? I'm just going to work for Republican senators to get them elected. I preferred Haley, but I'm not going to pick a. Basically, I'm not going to vote for a Democrat. So he wouldn't say anything bad about Trump, even though he very clearly wasn't his first choice. That's what I call a real Republican. That's a real Republican. I don't mind whatsoever that he had a different preference. That should not be my concern. And then there was some lefty sitting next to him on the panel. Well, two people panel. And that guy tries to interject as he's talking, the fine people hoax. And the Republican guy, I wish I knew his name. You should tell me his name if you know who it is. He just stops and he takes a moment to debunk the fine people hoax while the host sits there after he debunks it, saying, well, it was taken out of context. He was talking about the other people. The guy who claimed it sat there in silence like he'd never heard that before. Like, he'd never heard that. That was taken out of context. And the host didn't push back on the claim. That was the primary Biden claim. The primary Biden claim for the entire last election was a hoax. And there's a guy on their network who's calling out the hoax and also describing how it was done and how you can look for yourself. Just look on the transcript. And they just got quiet and ignored it and changed the subject. Now, what does Racial Mad now say about their network airing that hoax day after day after day? Well, that's the truth. I think they'd say no. So if you watch Rachel Mad now, you can only watch her as a clown. Have you seen the rapid eye blinking she does when she lies? So some of the people are doing the wide eye lying, but I don't think Racial Mad now does that. She does the blinking. So for those of you watching in video, she'll say stuff like, the sky is blue, water is wet. President Trump did an insurrection on January 6th. Everybody knows it. It's just obvious. Everybody knows it. And every should be in jail. You have to watch it when you look for the eye blinking. It's crazy. Now, if you really want to do a dirty trick, you want to know a trump dirty trick. Oh, this one's good. Do you remember when he was debating Marco Rubio and he said that Marco Rubio kept sweating? Do you remember that he kept sweating? Now that is trash talk, and that gets in your head. So he made Marco Rubio worry about sweating while he was trying to debate, which is one of the most diabolically clever trash talking you'll ever do. It's not regular trash talk. It's a trash talk that gets in your head while you're performing. That's a whole different level than if he just said some bad things about. So now he's got to worry about how he looks. If you want to take Rachel Badenow completely off the air with the same dirty trick, just point out that she blinks too hard when she lies. It's game over. It's totally game over. Yeah, blinky. Because I don't think she can control it. I think it's involuntary. I think she can't control the blinking. And I was watching to see if she blinks all the time, and she really doesn't. She does it when she's lying. It's hilarious when you watch it. Anyway, so Corinne Jean Pierre, their resident clown, declined to say whether Biden will debate. And she got into a back and forth with Steve Doocy trying to be cute. And she just said, you know, I keep telling you, that's a question for the campaign. Well, as I've said clearly many times, Steve Doocy, that really is something you should ask the campaign. Do you know what I heard? Now I'm just speculating and reading her mind, which nobody can do, but let me tell you how it came across. Oh, Peter Doocy. Sorry. Peter Doocy. The way it came across is that she really, really hates the campaign and really, really hates the staff and really hates Biden. That's what I heard. Did anybody else hear it? In her inability to do the most basic part of her job, which is to say, of course the President will debate. Don't you think that's the most basic part of her job? Of course the President will debate. He's in great shape. Of course he will. Just think about it. The President's own spokesperson was not allowed to say, of course he'll debate. She wasn't allowed. How much does she hate her job today? Right? Imagine how mad she is at her own team. That would send her out there completely naked in front of the world and make her try to figure out what to do about that. Oh, my God, she must hate them. And I could pick it up in her attitude. Could you now? Again, I'm probably just imagining it, you know, because you can't read minds. But boy, did she look like she hates them. That's what I saw. All right. As you know, Elon Musk has that lawsuit against OpenAI because they said they were going to be open and everybody could see their work. But then they became a closed entity for profit. Now, OpenAI does have an argument and some documentation to show that maybe that wasn't the biggest surprise in the world. But Elon Musk has a different opinion and in his back and forth with Sam Altman said that he would drop the lawsuit against OpenAI. OpenAI if they changed their name to closed AI. Now, there's not a single other person in the universe that I would believe if he said that. Right? I actually believe he's dead serious and that he would withdraw his bazillion dollar lawsuit. World changing lawsuit. If they'll just change the name so that he can be right. Because he probably doesn't want to be in a lawsuit. The last thing he wants to do is be in a lawsuit. Nobody wants that. So he's probably thinking, you know, what, if I get them to change their name, I'll win something. Now, that's Hilarious. Now, you know, they're not going to change the name, so it's not really possible. So he can put that out there as a serious offer. And they're going to have the choice of spending probably $50 million, defending it, or possibly losing. What if they lose? What if he wins? That's a really big risk. Because even if you say the odds of him winning are 5%, that's 5% of a trillion dollars, because that might be the value of the company. That's how much they would have to mentally expend is 5% of a trillion dollars just to find out if they're going to win. Or they could change their name to Closed AI that's pretty funny. Well, New York City is being militarized. The governor is putting the National Guard down in where does it. National Guard as well as whole bunch of state police into the subway city of New York City because there's a massive spike in violent crime. That's what the governor of New York is doing. So while the governor of New York is putting massive National Guard and state police into the subway because of the massive spike in crime, violent crime. At the same time, at exactly the same time, the mayor of New York is posting on X that murders are down, shootings are down, transit crime, which is what this would be, is down, car thefts are down. He says it's the safest big city in America and it just got safer. How do you explain that? Well, turns out there is an explanation. No, we'll get to the conspiracy theory parts, but there's actually an ordinary explanation, too. We'll get to the martial law theory, but how is it that smart people could not know whether violent crime is going up or going down? Let me ask you, do you think that the experts know one way or the other? Do you think they know is crime going up or is crime going down? Do you think they know? Turns out they don't know. Turns out there's no reliable data about crime. I found that out this morning. Thank you, Owen, for that. But here's what we know, and you can see it in my. In my feed. I just posted it before I got on here. But there's a long article that talks about there are two different sources of crime data and they don't agree. One source says it's going up, one source says it's going down. And the experts seem to agree on this. They don't know which one is right. Is that amazing? Yeah. So, Owen Gregorian, thank you for that note, because that was exactly what I was asking, I was asking, do we even know? Maybe there's nothing we know anymore. So it turns out that, and this is from the article, the conflicting signals from our major statistical systems for measuring crime means we cannot conclude with confidence whether violent crime other than homicide went up or down in 2022. Think about that. That we don't know if violent crime except for homicide went up or down. I mean, wow. Now who was it who sniffed that out first? I did. You could tell by the atmosphere that the experts didn't know if crime was going up or down. And actually that was the truth. It turns out that's literally what's happening. We actually don't know. Now, if you live in one of these cities, do you know if you live in New York City, do you know if crime is going up or down? Pretty sure you do. If you live in San Francisco, do you know if crime is going up or down? Pretty sure you do. So you can just ignore all the data? It's exactly what it looks like. I wonder what the crime stats are for my own neighborhood. I can tell you for sure crime has gone up in my town. I mean, obviously. I mean, the ones I've heard about. My neighbors have been hit twice. Two of my close neighbors have had gang break ins, like organized gang break ins of their homes. While I was home, by the way, while I was home, literally I could throw a stone and hit the neighbor's house, literally, and they were being robbed by a gang of South American robbers. This has happened twice in the last year. Two different neighbors. Now I can tell you for sure there's more crime in my neighborhood and I live in a really safe neighborhood. So if you're living in an inner city, I can't even imagine, it's got to be much worse. All right, so some people are saying, hey, maybe this is all part of some kind of upcoming martial law or there's a plan to seize power or there's going to be, what do you call it, a fake flag attack? Somebody say a fake 9, 11. Some of you think the first one was fake and a false flag. So is this part of a preparing troops for a false flag? I'm going to say no. You know what I think it is? I think it's literally this data problem. I think the governor is completely aware that there's a rise in crime. So she sent in a bunch of people to try to tamp it down. And I think the mayor looked at the statistics, which are maybe bs, and said, I don't want people to stop coming to my city because they think it's unfair. So I think the mayor is doing his good mayor job by telling you it's safe to come visit, don't move away, come visit, it's safe. That's sort of a good mayor job. I kind of like Mayor Adams. I have to admit, for someone who's, you know, has some opposing points of view, I feel like he's a solid person. Do you get that feeling like I think he's doing the best he can in a system that doesn't really give him the powers he'd like to have. So he very unlike, you know, like the crazy wide eyed people you see that just seem in tds. He does not seem like he's suffering from tds. He looks like he's a capable guy in a hard job. So even when maybe I don't like what he's doing, I still give him a lot of respect. I feel like he's a solid human anyway. So I think maybe that's just the whole story. But let's worry about the other stuff. So the State of the Union is tonight. I call it the hate of the Union because Biden's going to be telling us he hates part of the country. You know, he's going to tell you how much he hates Republicans and that you should hate them too. So it's the hate of the union. The hate of the union. And apparently the workers are putting up fence, protective fences around the area where that will happen. And that makes people think, oh no, what do you know that we don't know? I don't know. I feel like it's just normal kind of normal stuff. Does it scare you that they're putting up a protective fence around the State of the Union? They might have some indication terrorist thing going on. Do you think it's a reaction to the, the border being open and a lot more intel chatter about a problem? Do you think that the number one target of all terrorists would be the State of the Union? Of course it would. The State of the Union is the number one target. Do you know how I know that? I watch Game of Thrones. Yeah, if you watch Game of Thrones, you know, this is the ideal time to put secret dynamite underneath the basement of the Capitol and blow it all up when all the important people are there. I learned that from Game of Thrones and also Tom Clancy too, I guess. So it makes sense that they would put a little extra security there. That just makes sense under this consideration. Does it mean that they're Preparing? Are they preparing for martial law? I don't think so, because I don't think that they could get this many, like law enforcement people to just turn into Hitler's, you know, stormtroopers. I think they'd have to do a lot more to get people to turn on their own people in America. Could happen someday. I don't know. Well, I like to announce that the mole is back. The mole. How many of you remember the mole? Does that ring a Bell? Back in 2016, just for fun, I started the kind of imaginary idea that there's somebody I would call the mole. Not a real person, but it was the go to. Whenever Hillary's campaign did something that was so stupid, they think her advisors must be toying with her or playing a prank on her. And so Biden is starting to do things that look like it might be a prank played on him by an advisor. So when he did the shrinkflation thing and made a big deal about not having enough chips and cookies, that's the mole. Because you can't imagine that. David Axelrod said. David Axelrod, famous Democrat advisor. You can't imagine any scenario where David Axelrod sat with a campaigner. Biden said, you know what? I've got an idea. Has anybody talked about the lack of chips in the bag yet? Because I think the Americans are really, really caring about that right now. And you can make them forget about the inflation if you blame the potato chips and the cookies. Do you think David Axelrod advised that? Anybody? Does anybody think that was advised? No. Most likely it came from Biden himself. And his staff said, whatever, because they don't like him either. Do you know how much his staff must hate him by now? So the fact that they allowed him to go forward. They allowed him. And I do mean allowed. They allowed him to go forward with that. Too few chips. That sounds like the mole. There's no way that could be possibly serious. That is a practical joke on Biden by his staff. Somebody hates that guy. Here's another one. We're told that he's going to talk about raising taxes on corporations during the State of the Union. Do you know what would be the very worst time to suggest raising taxes on anybody, including corporations? The State of the Union. The worst time. The very worst time. And apparently he's going to do it. That sounds like the mole. Yeah, yeah, read my lips. It's a bad time to do it. Just don't talk about it. Anyway, apparently he's going to be appealing to people who don't understand economics. As usual, there's a weird story that Tucker Carlson has up on his site now in video, this psychiatrist named Dr. Keith Abloh, who you might recognize because he's often on Fox News. So hold this in your head if you can hold these two thoughts. He's a psychiatrist who is associated most with Fox News, at least publicly. And it turns out that one of his patients was Hunter Biden. What? Now, as he explains, when it comes down to your health, people just look for whoever can help them. It's not really political. So apparently he knew very well Hunter as a patient. So I guess he's allowed to say he was a patient. I'm surprised about that. But here's the part that surprised me. Armed agents raided his office, this is the psychiatrist's office. And took his patient records as well as Hunter's laptop and then never charged the psychiatrist with a crime. What was that all about? Why did the psychiatrist have one of Hunter's laptops? How many lost laptops did he have? And why would they take the patient records? I think, you know why. Does this look like a normal, normal government behavior? No, this looks like the Democrat army sent in some parts of their military, their armed agents to take some evidence that might have been embarrassing for the Biden administration. It's probably exactly what it looks like. It's exactly what it looks like. He used his paramilitary force to. I mean, it's just amazing. I think we're also mind boggled by the brazenness of what's happening. We don't even know what to do. It's like actually stuns you into inaction because there's just, it's so blatant and so right in your face. You just don't know what to do about it. Well, here's the hoaxocracy update. The hoaxocracy that we live in, we basically live in a hoax society is. Let's see, the co founder of this group that's concerned about voter suppression says that, I think black women in particular, she says we're living in a moment where we've seen that we believe we live in fair elections, but we don't. Oh, huh. There's a Democrat that says we don't live in fair elections. I may have power, but someone who's stealing my voters, suppressing my vote has to probably have some correlations to that. She said. So basically Democrats believe there's something called voter suppression happening and that it is taking away their rights. Can you fill me in on the voter suppression that I've never heard of what exactly would be the voter suppression? I can't think of anything now to vote. You just need no ID and you need to be breathing. I think. How easy is it to vote? There's literally nothing in civilization that's easier than voting. It's the only thing that everybody wants you to do. Right. You know, there might be somebody, some bad person somewhere who's trying to suppress some votes, but I've never seen it. I've never seen it in effect or policy or outcome. And if my neighbor is suppressed in their vote, I'd help. Like, I don't want anybody suppressed in their vote anyway. To me that feels like another hoax that only applies to Democrats. I don't think there's a single Republican who believes there's any voter suppression, do you? Is there even one person who identifies as conservative who believes that voter suppression of the left is happening? I've never seen any hint of it in any policy or I've never heard a news story about it in modern times. Right, well, maybe that's a problem with my own news sources. You never know. So the new hoax that they're ginning up, according to the news, the Hill is reporting this. So that Biden is going to talk about in the hate, the hate of the union that Trump harbors disdain for Latinos. He harbors it, no joke. They've already told the news that Biden is going to say he knows what Trump is thinking and his secret inner thoughts and it's bad stuff about Latinos that's really happening. Do you know what I say when I hear that there might be a new political hoax being launched for the spring? What? Well, I didn't see that coming. All right, so here's what we got coming to look for. If you want to play some drinking games. The words to look for for your drinking game. If you're going to play Biden bingo, look for a chaos extreme, extreme, mega extreme Trump. Look for dark and darkness. Look for existential Trump threat, look for dictator for a day and end of democracy. Those are the approved scare words. So those are the brainwashing words. Every, every time you hear a brainwashing word, chaos, extreme, dark, existential, dictator, end of democracy or insurrection. Sorry, Insurrection. Insurrection should be added to the list. Right, but we also expect maybe he'll highlight some of his best of hoaxes. He might come back to the insurrection hoax. The fine people hoax, the borders closed hoax, that Trump is a Putin puppet hoax. And of course he's introducing the Latino secret disdain hoax, the totally secret mental Disdain for people that Biden can detect with his dementia powers. Carpe danktum. Reminds me that I forgot something. You should also look for creepy whispering. Look for a creepy whispering. So that could be on your bingo card, too. If he does a creepy whisper, you know what that spelled like? Inflation is down to zero because of everything Biden did. You know creepy whispering. You should also look for MSNBC to give him breathless praise. I swear, you have to watch msnbc. The moment the hate of the union is over, go right to it. And I want to give you a preview of what that's going to look like. Some of the probable highlights will be. There's no way that Trump could have pulled off a performance like that. My goodness, did you see the mental alacrity, the capability of that man? I could feel the power of his brain pulsing through the screen. I've never seen a person so capable. He's the best Biden there's ever been. He's at the top of his powers, man. There's where experience counts. Imagine Trump going up there and bumbling through it. It would have been a nightmare. But Biden, he just powered through it. You could feel the strength and the conviction in his voice. I think they'll also say that Biden was shooting golden shafts of truth out of his eyes, in contrast with the big old liar called Trump. And the economy is really taking off. Biden is going to say, and he's going to say, the reason for the economy is miscellaneous things that you haven't noticed. Miscellaneous things he did that you haven't noticed are making the economy zoom. All right. What? Well, I didn't see that coming. Well, I introduced you today the killer persuasion that can destroy the entire Democratic Party and all it stands for, should you like to use it. And I call it the levels of awareness in politics. Now, here's the important part. If you are at a different level in understanding than the people you're debating with, it is a waste of time. It would be like a monkey arguing with a potato. I don't know if you're the potato or the monkey. In this example, you could be the monkey or the potato. But my point is, a potato and a monkey do not have the same understanding of the world. And if they try to have a debate, well, it's going to look like nonsense to the rest of us. Why is that monkey debating a potato? Why is a potato. Why does a potato have eyes? You'd have many questions about it. But here's level one, and I'll go through the Levels, so you know not to argue with somebody who's not, at least on your level. Level one is they believe that their preferred news sources say they believe what their preferred news sources say, and they do not sample other sources. So they're not aware of any counter arguments, and they're not aware that their own news is mostly just narrative. Now, that would apply to what I call my smartest Democrat friend, who literally gets his news from CNN and the New York Times and believes that reading anything else would just be garbage. He's a level one political thinker. Level two, you do sample news from multiple sources, so not just your preferred, but you see what the other side says, but you still believe that your source is the right one, and you believe that the other side is full of narrative, but yours is just singing the truth. Oh, it's a good thing that my news sources are telling me the truth all the time. That'd be level two. So you're familiar with the other side, but you don't give it much respect because you think it's all fake. Level three, you're aware that all news is fake, at least in terms of missing context. Right? They might be true facts, but out of context, so that you're intentionally misled. This would also be known as the Gell Mann amnesia. Now, Gell Mann, you've heard this too many times. A famous physicist who noticed that when he read the news, if he saw a story in his field of expertise, which was physics, he knew immediately that the story was wrong because he knew what was right. But then he would say, he would turn the page, read a story in a domain in which he was not an expert, and he would say, well, that's probably true. But after doing it long enough, he said to himself, what are the odds that 100% of the time I read something I know about it is wrong, but all the other stories are correct. And so from that he generalized correctly that all the stories are fake. It's just that some people know because they're experts and most people don't. So that would be level three, where you realize all news is fake, at least in terms of context. That's Left out. Level 4, you go beyond the news is fake and all the way to the experts which are giving the information to the news are unreliable. Some might be right, others might. I'm not saying that every expert's wrong about everything. Sometimes they're right, often they're right, but you can't tell. That's the problem. The problem is thinking you could tell if you think you could tell, you're at a lower level of awareness. So level four, you know that the experts, none of the experts are reliable because money distorts everything. And you know, you might never see anybody who thought they would lose their job if they said something unpopular. Level 5 is where you start to see the gears of the machine. And I'm going to call it Mike Benz style. Now, if you don't know Mike Benz is, it's probably proof that you also don't know what the gears of the machine are or even what I'm talking about, because you're not there yet. What I'm talking about is the fact that we don't live in a republic and haven't for a long time and that the real powers who are running things are some combination of current and ex intelligence professionals and some combination of billionaires. And they largely control all the important decisions that have to do with the big stuff, the world and other countries and wars and stuff like that. Now I do think our government is in charge of stuff like, I don't know, abortion, the local stuff, but all the big stuff, the big money stuff, the foreign stuff, the war stuff, that clearly we've been under some other kind of administration for a long time. So once you see all the gears of the machine and you know who's actually in power and you know it's some combination of intelligence officials, then you're in level five. And then there's only one level above level five, it's level six. And level six, you're dead because you knew too much. And this is also known as the Epstein level, Level six. So Epstein was a level six. He actually knew everything. So of course he's dead. He had to die. So those are your levels. Now the way you would use this as a sword of persuasion is to make it a thing. If you repeat it and post it, then you can simply dismiss people at lower levels as not ready to debate, not inferior. They're not inferior because we were all level one at one point. They're simply people who have not yet traveled the path. They're not, they're not stupid. They're not even. Well, there might be some ignorance, that's part of the process, but they're not defective. Don't think that there's something wrong with people who are at a different level. Nothing like that. They're also not dumb, which is the real surprising part. They're definitely not dumb. My, my Democrat friend I always talk about, he's one of the smartest people I know. Like, you wouldn't want to take an IQ test, compete against them ever. You would not want to do that. He's smarter than me, you know, if we, if we both took a standardized test, he'd beat me easily. So it's not about smart. It's just where you are on the journey. And maybe you don't care to make the journey. Maybe it's just never something never occurred to you. You know, maybe there's something that never happened to you accidentally that caused you to, you know, want to look into it further. But that will end all of your disagreements. You'll just say, sounds like you're a level three, and get back to me when you're a level four. All right, so here's this is another Owen Gregorian post I saw. Apparently the Washington Post economics columnist is talking about some economic study and is not capable of reading the cross tabs on the study that she's writing about. And so, in other words, is just describing the study wrong while the study is actually published in the same article. So you can actually look at the study and look at what the expert says about it. Oh, it's a poll. It's a poll, not a study. So it's based on a poll, not a study. But you can look at the poll and you can look at the cross tabs, and you can see that the interpretation doesn't match the cross tabs. Now, what level is that? Once you realize that the news is fake, you're not there yet. You have to also realize that the experts are not reliable. It's not just the news. It's where they're getting their information from is just as bad. Here's Rasmussen did a poll on. Well, let me just tell you, here's the result. 52% of likely US voters believe it's likely that US intelligence agencies are seeking to control the outcome of the 2024 presidential. Let me just read that again. 52% of people are going to vote, so that includes Democrats and Republicans. I don't know the mix here. 52% think it's likely we don't live in a republic. Just think about that. Because if we lived in republic, this wouldn't be happening. But if the intelligence agencies can determine who wins the election, I don't know what we are. We're like a federal, aren't we? A federal federal Democratic Republic or something. There's a bigger name to the republic. We're a federal republic. But I think there's one other word in there. What's the Third word. We're a federal something Republic. Right. A constitutional Federal Republic. We're a constitutional Federal Republic. I believe that's the official name. But we're definitely not that. We haven't been that for a while. So 52% of likely US voters are suspicious. Let's see how many people don't think that's the case. Good guess. Whenever it's less than 25%, you know you have. Really? It's actually less than 25%. So let's say, oh, 38% don't think intelligence agencies are trying to control election. But that includes 20% who say it's not at all likely. 20% say it's not at all likely. Really? Let me tell you what's likely. If you have a government that's not a dictatorship, or maybe even if it is, and you have a gigantic, well funded entity who are experts at taking over governments, and then you add time. Really, you don't think it's likely that you could predict how that's going to turn out? There's only one way that turns out. You could run that experiment a thousand fucking times every time you put those variables together. And the people who are experts at taking over countries eventually will own the country. There is not a second way that can turn out. There really isn't. You can't even imagine one. All you have to do is add time. Maybe we resist for a year, maybe five years. Maybe we resist for 20 years, but eventually it only goes one way and apparently we're already there. All right, Rasmussen, I'm sorry, we have another story here. Apparently Hamas has pulled out of the talks about securing a ceasefire. Turns out that they added some, some things they wanted toward the end. They wanted Israel's commitment to discuss a permanent stop of the fighting. And so the temporary ceasefire broke down. Huh? A ceasefire broke down in Gaza. What to think about that? What? Well, I didn't see that coming. So here's what, here's what Hamas thinks they're negotiating. Maybe if we give all the hostages back, they'll let us live and we'll just reform our army and carry on. Now, who thinks Israel is going to agree to that? Here's Israel's. We're going to kill all of you whether you give the hostages back or not. That's their only offer. We're going to kill every one of you. The fighters, not the, not the civilians. We're going to kill every one of you. And there's no argument about it. We're going to kill every one of you, even if you kill all the hostages now, if you want a ceasefire, because you also care about the civilians, definitely we can talk about that. If you like a ceasefire, because maybe there's a legitimate trade of prisoners, we could talk about that. But we're not going to talk about the question of whether we're killing every one of you. The people they're negotiating with, they're going to kill. How do you negotiate with somebody you know is going to kill you no matter what you do? Why would you negotiate? Yeah, so every time I hear that they're on the brink of a ceasefire, it made sense in the beginning when there were a lot of hostages and they both could win. But I think when you get to that last few dozen hostages, you maybe don't want to give them back because they're going to have some stories that you don't want them telling. You know what I mean? So, yeah, no, I don't see a ceasefire coming. Well, here's the most surprising thing I'm going to say. Suppose it's true, as all indications suggest, that we don't live in a constitutional federal republic and we're actually run in large part by our intelligence past and present. Is that bad? Here's a surprise twist ending. Is that bad? Look at the quality of your president at the moment. Look at the quality of your president. Do you want that guy making important decisions about your national security? I don't. I don't. But then you say, I know, but if it's Trump, I do. If it's Trump, I do. Maybe. And maybe that's why he's in great physical risk, because he could take some power, because he could actually maybe do something capable. But here's what I suspect. I suspect that when you become president, there's some meeting in which they tell you how the real world works, and that takes away all of your power, and they know it, and that's why they do it. And when they say this is how the real world works, it's probably some combination of ensuring them that they have the goods on them indirectly. Oh, by the way, we do surveil everything and everybody involved in the political process. We don't like everybody to know that, but we actually know everything you've ever done for six years. Imagine a president learning for the first time that his own intelligence agency already knows all of his secrets that have never come out in the news or anywhere else. They don't have to threaten him. That is a threat. They just have to indicate that they always have more information than the news reports, that's it. And then you're afraid of them. Then they say, I'm just speculating, but it seems logical. In the real world, they say something like this, look, we can never tell the voters everything that's happening because if we did, they would resist. And they're not smart enough to know how things work in the real world. Sometimes we have to do horrible, horrible things that even involve deaths of innocent Americans. And if we put it up to a vote, people would say, no, no, you can't kill any American for any reason, and therefore we wouldn't be able to protect America because it's a dirty, dirty, ugly world. For example, I'm pretty sure at some point somebody says to the President, we pretend to fight the cartels, but they're actually on our team because the cartels control the government of Mexico. And there's no way that we can allow the government of Mexico to be controlled by a foreign country. So Mexico's government is so weak that somebody like the Chinese could buy their way into control, and then you'd end up with, like, an enemy on your border. So the only thing we can do, and nobody's come up with a better idea, is we partner with the cartels. We tell them they can earn their money with their drugs and their, their human trafficking, but in return, they'll make sure that they keep China out of Mexico. Now I'm just using China as the, you know, bad guy proxy. And in that way, by having a working partnership of our, our spooks with their cartels, we can not only assassinate Mexicans we don't like, in case somebody who got bought off by a Chinese somebody, that sort of thing, but we can also control the government. We just can't say it in public. So I think that's why we don't go after fentanyl in any way that looks serious. That's why I think that no Republican will use the military in Mexico. Remember, every candidate said, oh, we'll definitely use the military in Mexico. Vivek said it, Trump said it, Desantis said it. We're not going to use the military in Mexico. My current understanding is that the cartel is on our team. It's the only thing that makes sense. It's the only thing that makes sense. And you know what's weird about it? You know, you all know my story. You know, my stepson died of a fentanyl overdose. And so since that moment, I've been radical about doing whatever it takes to make that stop or to make the People doing it, pay for it. I now realize that it's a conscious trade off. That's my current working understanding. I could be wrong, but it's my working assumption. And believe it or not, it makes me feel better about the tragic loss of my own stepson because I feel now he's part of a war, a war victim. You know, certainly he was addicted to drugs and that was the proximate cause of his death. But I believe he's just part of the war. And I believe that there's a conscious decision to kill a hundred thousand Americans and that I think the CIA thinks those are the expendables. Literally. I think that this. And by the way, a lot of you say it too. When I talk about my stepson dying of fentanyl, do you know half of you say good? Yeah, people say that to me every day. Good, we won't miss them. Get rid of the druggies. Did you know your fellow humans are that bad? I hear that every day. Every day on social media. If the topic comes up. Only if the topic comes up, somebody tells me that the people like my stepson are basically, nobody's gonna miss them and it's their own damn fault. And nobody cares about addicts. I believe that is the attitude of our government, at least the military industrial part of it. I believe that they literally don't care about that population. And their reasons would be coldly, militarily, horribly justified. Meaning that their argument isn't stupid. It might be evil, definitely evil, but it's not stupid. And it doesn't mean it doesn't work. It doesn't mean it's not keeping you safer unless you have a stepson who takes pills. So I have a very mixed feeling about it. I actually think that our overlords probably are making profits, certainly finding ways to profit personally, but they might actually have a better handle on what's keeping you safe than you and I do. Because they're working with a completely different set of information. They know what's real. You and I don't know what's real. So it's hard to judge that they're doing their job or not doing their job. But my working assumption is that if you want to protect yourself from fentanyl, you got to do it yourself. I don't believe the government has any role except pretend we pick up gigantic batches of fentanyl, but nobody pretends that makes a difference because they can make fentanyl in unlimited amounts. So you just ship more. There's no difference. Maybe the price goes up for a week. So I'm confused. I actually don't know if I should complain about this situation or if it's a situation that has been keeping America safe for over 50 years. My best guess is that this exact situation has been the case for over 50 years, maybe at least since Eisenhower's time, and that there might not be a better system. It's completely evil, but doesn't mean it doesn't work, right. Doesn't mean it doesn't work. So that, ladies and gentlemen, is the best podcast you've ever seen. And tonight I'll be watching the Hate of the Union with you and we'll all have a good laugh, I swear. You have to go immediately to MSNBC to see the clown show as soon as it's done. It's going to be really good this time. And watching Biden try to read the teleprompter without dementia anger is going to be fun because he's also going to have dementia anger. Trumper. Yep. I would also look for him to try to avoid calling a third of the country deplorables in different words and fail. I'll bet you he will fail to make it political or just about Trump. He's going to bring in the maga. If he uses the word maga. I got a problem with that. I got a big problem with that. All right, so that's all we got for now. Hope I don't make it to level six. And I hope you don't either. And thanks for joining, all of you on the X platform and Rumble and the racist YouTube platform. I will see you same time tomorrow. Thanks for joining.