o.

Paper cup coffee. Not as good. Protein bar. Not my regular kind. Everything's wrong. Well, yeah, we'll talk about the great replacement. Man, so that seems to be the big story of the day. We've all been waiting for the hoax of the day. This one seems to be based on the shooting of yet another little turd who's killing people for no good reason. And this has caused CNN and everybody to blame it on Tucker Carlson.

Now, is it my imagination or does the left think that Tucker Carlson runs everything? Because it seems to be that they believe if they can take Tucker Carlson out, they can end the Democrats' communication channel. And it's almost true, isn't it? I feel like Tucker Carlson has become the primary Republican voice for people who are really sort of watching things. But let's talk about that.

So Tucker Carlson has spoken of this so-called great replacement theory. Would it be possible for me to speak about it without being accused of embracing it? What do you think? If I simply broached the topic, would I be accused of embracing it and therefore a white supremacist? It seems unlikely. I don't know if you've watched. There's a minor drama going on in my public life. There's a specific individual who I won't name who's a cult leader of some sort. He has a man cult, and he's decided that he's really, really mad at me for my support of masks during the pandemic, which never happened.

So there's an entire organization — you know, his members and his leader — who attack me on a regular basis. They created accounts on social media to come after me, and their biggest complaint is how pro-mask I was, which actually never happened. Literally never happened. So I never recommended them, never was in favor of them. I talked about it. I showed you some studies. But my life is influenced by somebody who has a completely wrong opinion and obviously never really watched anything I said, but he's decided to wrap his life around it. Okay, all right.

So there's somebody out there who's got a whole mission to destroy me based on something imaginary. Now that's my normal life. My normal life is people coming after me for imaginary things. It happens every single day. It's the hardest thing.

So let's talk about replacement theory. So I saw Tucker Carlson talk about it the following way. He described it as math. That if you're in the United States and you have a vote, it wouldn't matter if you were Democrat or Republican, and you add more people from other countries, it will dilute your vote because of math. Now, is there anybody who doubts the math? That there's an existing group of people who could vote, and then you were to add new people to that group — it wouldn't matter where they came from — wouldn't that group, the original group, have less influence per person? Is there anybody doubting the math?

Now, my understanding is that Tucker just showed the math and said, well, yes, literally and mathematically. No, the math is that if you add something to an existing group, you dilute the group, right? So that's not really an opinion. So CNN has treated math like an opinion. No, seriously. CNN's actual editorial opinion is that math and the result of it is racist. And that actually is the biggest story today. That CNN thinks math is racist because when Tucker Carlson gives them a math lesson, it's coming from Tucker Carlson. So I guess logically, QED, therefore it must be racist.

Now, the part they don't say is they're assuming that Tucker Carlson's entire motivation is to have fewer brown people and more white people. Has he said anything like that? That would be a different conversation, right? Because he does talk about culture. Now, is it true that if you have an existing culture and you were to add people from a different culture to it, would the existing culture stay exactly the same, or would it change? Exactly the way we like things to change, which is we like to be influenced by each other and develop our own civilization. So if he says that the way things are, the culture would change if you added people from a different culture — it wouldn't matter which one it was — would it be different? Yes. And if you liked it the way it was, would you be happy that something changed? Well, people don't like change if they're already happy. They don't like change.

Now, which of those statements from Tucker are the big racist ones? The one that's math — if you add people to an existing group, it dilutes it — or the other one that's also basically math, which is you add different cultures to an existing culture, probably the average is going to change a little bit. Those literally are both math. And the plumes. Yeah, whatever happened to plume theory?

All right, you now you're going to make me talk about it. Did that plume theory — was that how much COVID you got initially would have a big impact on whether you got sick — did that get debunked? Because I thought that was basic understanding. I didn't think that was even a question. Was it a basic understanding that if your initial contact was a little bit of virus, you could still get it, but if you got a little bit of virus, maybe your body could mount a response a little better than if you just slammed it with a ton of virus? Is that not true? Is getting infected with a tiny bit of virus exactly the same as taking a big swig from the cup? What do you think?

Now, I think that it's probably different because I haven't heard anybody revise that. To me, now I've seen David G. do the lol Putin theory. If that's the best you have as your counter, lol, you don't have anything. Because do you know what argument I'm making about masks? Math. It's math. More virus is worse. Less virus will give you a better situation. Does anybody argue with that? Let me see in the comments. In the comments, would you accept the assumption that more exposure to virus initially is worse? Yes or no? Is more exposure initially worse for your outcomes? Give me your answers. More exposure better or worse?

I'm seeing people are saying yes on Locals. Somebody says unknown. Well, you know, the experts said it's worse. All right, you two are seeing some no's. Oh, interesting. On YouTube you're saying that the amount of initial virus doesn't matter. Some people are saying that. A lot of people say yes. Yeah, the concentration and the amount. Yes. All right. So more is worse. Yeah, so I think you would find more is worse. There's no question about that.

Now, if you have a barrier which is sending your plumes sideways and up and down instead of directly like a fire hose into somebody's mouth when you're talking to them, which is likely to give you more virus. When we measure masks, what do they measure? They measure infections, don't they? Do they measure outcomes? Has anybody done a study that said that the people who got it from somebody who had a mask on had as bad outcomes as somebody who got it from somebody who had no mask? What do you think? Am I ballsy? Yes, I balls in them.

So to me, my argument is only math, and people have sent us an opinion. Is math an opinion? No, math isn't an opinion. It's math. Tucker's opinions are math. My mask opinion is that I don't want one, and it didn't make enough difference that I think it was useful. Right, so I've always been against them, but not because they make no difference. There are lots of things I'm against. They help a little, right? They just don't help enough.

Somebody says this is not math. Yes, it is. I use math plus engineering. The engineering part's obvious that the mask sends the plume sideways and up. That part's obvious because you can't blow out a candle with a mask on. Why does it not work the same with Omicron? Omicron is just catchier. That's all. Right now statistics are an opinion. Well, maybe it's an opinion about who did the math, right? I suppose. All right. Only with a crappy mask, I suppose. That's right too.

What else is going on? All right. So it looks like this great replacement thing will be the new CNN hoax, or at least they'll ride this for a while. And the Republicans are trying to respond by saying, well, you guys did some bad stuff too. That's not very strong. So wow, is that the best they have?

The great replacement theory. Scott Krog says — let's see how many people agree with Scott Krog. He says, Scott, let's be honest, you were pushing the vax pretty hard for about two months. All right, those of you who've watched me the entire time, how many of you agree with stupid Scott Krog? How many say I was pushing the vaccine pretty hard for two months? One hundred people who watch me every single day on Locals are saying no. One hundred. One hundred, Scott. Scott Krog. So what the — were you looking at, Scott? Because it wasn't me. You must have confused me with — because the people who won't say anything positive about the thing they're against. Right?

So Scott, you may be projecting. You may be projecting. Yes, you're projecting. Because you saw somebody reasonably say, huh, you got this on this side, you got this on this side, and you saw that and you said, well, he must be an idiot because he's looking at both sides. That's what you did. That's what you did, Scott. You saw somebody looking at both sides and you couldn't handle it because you're an idiot. So don't come here and tell me what I'm thinking when you don't know and you don't understand anything about the topic or how to talk about topics. So you not only do you not understand about vaccines, probably, but you don't understand how people talk. You don't understand this thing. A little bit of something doesn't tell you anything. You don't understand a thing about the world, Scott. So go away. Please leave the broadcast.

All right. Yes, I didn't give any medical advice that I'm aware of. I saw the Adam Schiff tweet today, and this is a two-part story. The first part is I saw an Adam Schiff tweet. Do you know the last time I saw him tweet was months ago? And then Elon Musk informed us that if you tap that little star icon in the top of your app for Twitter, you can get it to give you your tweets chronologically just as they come in instead of having the algorithm decide what you see. And as soon as I turned off the algorithm, what do you know what happened? Well, there was an Adam Schiff tweet. So for the first time he wasn't blocked in months and months.

So let me tell you what he said since I got to see him for the first time in months. Thank you, Twitter algorithm. So Russia's current account is at a record high, meaning cash that they're getting in from exports. So from that one measure of the Russian economy, it's doing better than ever. And that's just one measurement within a larger economy. And then eurozone's plunged into a record deficit. So that's not good.

Do you believe anything that comes out of Russia? Because only Russia would know what the current account for Russia is, right? Or is that something that everybody has access to? To me it sounds like this is a whole bunch of lies.

Let's talk about Putin dying. I saw a tweet which I tweeted from somebody who I'll give you his name: Jack Hopkins. I don't know who he is. He's a user on Twitter, but he didn't look crazy. And he said that he used to manage an oncology floor. So apparently he spent years around people who were known to be dying of cancer. And he shows a picture of Putin's face now all puffy looking next to a picture of him from just two years ago. And he says, I've seen this look a million times. He's dying at some rate, basically has terminal something, probably cancer. Do you buy that? Because somebody who managed an oncology floor says I've seen this look a million times. This is it. What do you think?

Do you believe somebody says altered photos? Well, no, all of Putin's photos have that same puffy look lately. You believe he believes that he does. Somebody says heart failure. Does heart failure make you look puffy? It does, okay. And how about cancer an