nt to destroy their own business, apparently, in which they're going to try to be less sensational. Why would anyone watch less sensational news? If you had a choice between sensational news and less sensational news, meaning that the hyperbole would be added or not, which one would you watch? You say you'd watch the one without the hyperbole. That's what you say. If I did a survey, I bet a lot of people say, you know, I don't need all that opinion and all that exaggeration and bigotry and one side is right and one side is wrong. I don't need any of that. But if you were given two choices, you would take that as long as it was on your side. Who in the world wants to see neutral things when they can see victory? Because that's what the news sources do. They tell you your side is right. If you turn on Fox News, it is going to be one story after another telling you that you were right all along, meaning you as a Fox News regular viewer. Yep, you were right all along when you warned that if this happens, bad things will happen. Well, here it is. You are so smart. Who's not going to watch that? I mean, seriously. If you could watch news that's just somebody did something, we don't know what it means, or we totally know what it means and it proves how smart you are, which one are you going to watch? I'm going to watch the one that says I'm smart. I may be small, but I'm not unaware of it.

All right. Here's the perpetual news, the news that never changes. Every day, Germany is in a gas shortage. Andreas Backhaus, I think I saw a tweet in which he pointed out the news is that this wasn't already news. Why is Germany just preparing for a shortage? Because that's the story. Germany's getting more aggressive about preparing the public for upcoming gas shortages. Well, they're not upcoming. They're already there. So there's already a gas shortage because of Russia. Now Russia says you have to reduce the amount of gas, not to punish Germany but rather because they couldn't get equipment from the West that was needed to keep their facilities working. What do you think is true? Do you think it's true that the one and only reason Putin cut gas production is to put pressure on the economies so that they would give him what he wants? Or do you think that he didn't have spare parts because that was exactly our strategy, to deny him spare parts? He's kind of calling your bluff, isn't he? Not yours, but you know. So the United States says we're going to sanction Russia and they won't be able to get any modern spare parts, so their industries that require Western technology will eventually crumble. And then it works and they can't get spare parts and so they can't deliver gas, so Germany doesn't have enough gas. Isn't that exactly what we were trying to do? Am I wrong? If we were preventing Russia from getting this replacement equipment and there was no exception for the energy industry as far as I know, weren't we making sure that Germany had a shortage this year?

If you were Putin, which would you prefer? Doing, reducing the gas to Germany and making them replace your sources, maybe forever? Or selling as much gas to Germany as you possibly can, making as much profit as you can to keep the Russian economy as strong as you can? Which one of those would have been a better strategy? Because they're both sort of longer-term war strategy. One says put a little pressure on the enemy and that'll be one part of the larger picture of why they fold. Maybe the pressure on Germany's public will make them fold. I don't know. Maybe. But it's also possible that having Russia make more money by selling more gas could be a good thing too. We don't know what's good and bad anymore. We've completely lost the ability to know that if something happens, whatever the something is, therefore something else will happen.

I just saw a Mike Cerovich tweet just before I came on. I'm trying to digest it as sort of a new thought. And he says, I'm paraphrasing, that if you think you know what's going to happen with real estate prices, he thinks you should be blocked immediately. And anybody who's sure they know what's going to happen with real estate prices, because one of the things he points out is that sure, you know, interest rates are going up so mortgages are more expensive, so it's harder to buy a house. That makes sense. So if it's harder to buy a house, the prices of houses might go down. But as Mike points out, rents are probably going up because there are more people than places to live. I think that's the only reason rent goes up, right? There are more people than there are places to live. So as long as that's the case, people are either going to have to pay more for rent or more for a house. So you're always going to have all these counterbalancing forces. Nobody's really smart enough to know how any of this turns out. Isn't