get rid of those anyway.

Did you see the article in The New York Times suggesting that offices might need to spray bleach all over their equipment? Have you heard that? Yeah, the New York Times is reporting that because the World Health Organization is saying that the virus stays airborne for a while, they might have to spray bleach all over your computers and your electronics every day in the office. Oh, they didn't say that? Oh, they didn't say that, so it's not true?

Well, I read in the article, they said from the New York Times article that they were thinking they might need a UV light in offices as a disinfectant. That's bleach, isn't it? I'm sure they taught us that because I used to think UV light was just a part of the light spectrum which happened to have the quality that it kills viruses. And back in the old days I thought, oh well, there it's just the light. But once the president mentioned using UV light as a disinfectant, potentially even in the lungs because they were testing putting it on a ventilator or just ventilating your lungs directly with light — I mean not ventilating but disinfecting — but the mainstream media has taught me that what that really means is bleach. So even if you say UV light, what you mean is actually just bleach. So they wanted to spray bleach all over offices, I think, unless I'm confused by the article.

So the Washington Post, the New York Times, and every dead-brained Democrat has decided that the phrase for the summer will be "dark and divisive." So the president's speech at Mount Rushmore was dark and divisive. Dark and divisive. That's really good. It's actually better than dark. You remember they got some extra expert advice in the last election, the Democrats. And after the president's campaign speech at his whatever he called the Republican convention, they all said it's a dark speech. It's dark, dark, dark. But now they've upgraded it to dark and divisive. Dark and divisive is better, and dark was pretty good. So the Democrats have cranked it up and I would say the quality of their campaign now is pretty good. It's pretty good. So I'll talk about that in a minute.

So it's really shocking and amazing if you happen to be aware of your environment, which many people are not, and you read how the press has clearly colluded. It's obvious that the press has gotten together. They all got the memo. They're working for the Democrats. We don't have any question about that anymore because they all come up with the same phrases at the same time. There's no doubt about it. And for them to turn that speech into what they turned it into, it's just amazing that people can read these publications and come away from them thinking that they're even trying to produce news. The fact that anybody thinks these are news organizations anymore is mind-boggling. But anyway, that's that.

I had my own complaints about the president's speech because he uses words like "culture" and "heritage" in ways that I think either are intended to be divisive in the sense that they're good for the base but not good for the general election, or he doesn't know the difference and there's nobody on the team who can tell him the difference. Because honestly if I heard "heritage" and "culture" and I thought that my background or my ancestors' history was mostly slavery and then the ripple effect from slavery, I would not be looking to celebrate heritage and culture. I would feel like, hey, that's white people's heritage and culture. So I would say that is the one complaint that, well it's not the only complaint that they have a good point on, but it's one complaint they do have a good point on.

And to the extent that the president continues using words like that and the Republicans do, those are losing words in a sense. In other words, those are the words you use if you're not really trying to win. Honestly, some of us have had some question about whether the president is really in it to win at this time. Now I've heard other people say, I think Mike Cernovich says this, that the president's speech at Mount Rushmore was actually a strong rallying cry for the base. You know, it was no more apologizing. It was more of an aggressive statement of how things should be. And it was all of those things. But it also included things like culture and heritage.

Now I know what you want to do. You want to say no, those words mean X. Don't tell me those words mean this other thing because they don't mean those. We mean these words to mean a way of life that includes, let's say, a strong family unit, things which have nothing to do with race. Don't tell me. I'm not the one you have to convince. I'm simply telling you that if you want to lose an election, use those words. I don't care how you define them. I'm just saying that those are election-losing words in my opinion.

Now could it be that those are such strong words for the base that it gets more votes out? And I imagine that that's the calculation. But I think it also reads the mood of the country wrong because none of it needed to be said. You could get to the same place without using those words. For example, you could say let us appreciate the history that was not kind. Well, you know, let us understand it and study it. But let us take the things which have worked well for our country for hundreds of years and they've always worked well and try to build unity