right are much higher than if he gives you five. If he gives you five it's going to look like laundry list persuasion. As in well none of these are proven but look how many there are. You know, where there's smoke there must be fire sort of thing. That would be persuasion. If he gives you one he might have the goods. So that's the first thing you look for. Look for the one that just wins the day because maybe there is one. Who knows? I don't know.

If he gives you the one that's really strong and then can't help himself and he's got to mention all the other ones that are not as strong, that's a waste of time. That's just going to — all that will happen is the news will debunk the weak ones. They will ignore the strong one. Am I right? You all know it. They will ignore the strong one. They'll debunk the weak ones and they'll tell you that they're done and they're all debunked, right?

Now Trump could also explain that because that's how the gears of the machine work. Imagine you're giving the speech and saying all right, now here's how the gears of the machine work. I've given you five examples. One of them I believe is really solid. Watch the news coverage tomorrow. They're only going to talk about the other ones which even I tell you need more investigation. These are not guaranteed. These are just red flags. But watch how they treat the red flags as the one they debunk if they can and they ignore my strong one. Now he won't do that, but you know you can imagine he could.

Well, that's going to be must-watch TV. Do you think there's anything that would stop you from watching Trump's try to pull off the third act? Because that's the third act. If he pulls it off, that's the third act. I wouldn't put a big bet on it because I don't know. It'll be as clean as he gives a speech and that's his third act and everything changes. I doubt that because the media will just try to eviscerate him no matter what he says. But it could be. Then maybe he starts a spark of something that maybe somebody later can prove is real. We'll see. I wouldn't expect any major change on Monday, but it's so — I mean I'm so interested.

You know what is it that after all of these fake claims — fake meaning unproven — after all the times that he got his hopes up, do you think that this is the time of all times? Is this the time he would come forth with okay, we finally got the goods? This would be the time unless you really have it. I mean it would be a hell of a gutsy play if he didn't have the goods. But you know it's possible he could think he has them and doesn't. You never know.

All right. So YouTube, the new rules are that they can ban you for content that disagrees with the World Health Organization or local health officials like the CDC. Michael Shellenberger is pointing out that it will censor you if you disagree with the World Health Organization. Think about that. Do you realize that I would have been censored? So when the World Health Organization first said some stuff about masks and I tried to debunk them, I would have been banned on YouTube. Amazing.

All right. But then Michael Shellenberger says YouTube isn't a social media platform, it's a propaganda platform. And I said to myself, huh, I kind of like that framing. Because by my count — your count might be different — but by my count there's only one social media platform and the rest are propaganda platforms. They're advertising and propaganda. But there's one that's actually social media. That's X. X is at least trying to be a social media platform. The other ones are just essentially propaganda platforms that suck money out of your pockets and sell the advertisers.

All right. Yeah, you don't tweet anymore. You exclaim. Or you post. Post is the most boring word for it, but I guess that's where we're going with it.

All right, ladies and gentlemen. More to Elon Musk's point. If you looked at me a year ago and you said how do you prepare for this live stream, I would say I read the news and I collect the news and then I talk about it with my own opinions. But lately I've realized that I've done the show without ever checking the news because I checked social media, which picks out pieces from the news and often refers to the actual news source. But that's the only way this seems to make sense. Do you know why?

If you go to CNN and you see a story, you're going to see the CNN spin of the story. Is that useful? It's worse than negative. It's worse than nothing. It would be better if you'd never seen it because it's a spin. It's opposite of news. It's a sort of managed news. If you go to Fox News, are you ever going to see them agreeing with CNN? No, you know they have their own spin on things. So if you see either news, you've got to go to both sources and make sure you've cross-checked your work, which I do all the time. I show you that I like to see something's true on both platforms before I'm sure it's true. If only one platform says it's true, well I don't know, probably not, maybe.

However, I've noticed lately I can spend all of my time on Twitter because if there's a story that makes my hair on fire like ah, did somebody really do or say that, there'll be a community note or there'll be another human saying no, this is out of context. You know this is what they left out. Here's a link to the opposite story. So when I read Twitter I get the news from both directions. When I read any other so-called news platforms I have to go to at least two sources so I've seen both sides. But Twitter has it there automatically.

You know that you can always count on the trolls to come in and give you as much trouble as possible. The trolls actually are kind of useful because even when they don't say factual arguments, they give you a sense of how people are feeling. They give you a sense of how basically how brainwashed they are. When you see the trolls — let's say the trolls were not just saying a bad thing, they're trying to argue that politics — you should feel sorry for them because the trolls are the most hypnotized, brainwashed people. They're not coming at you with their better arguments. They're coming at you with TDS. So you can see the effects of brainwashing best on the trolls. So you don't want to get rid of the trolls. They're like this little indicator of how bad the brainwashing is because the more brainwashing, more trolls.

All right. The trolls are the ones who say it was an insurrection. Yeah. So if you didn't know from the trolls that they actually believed there was an insurrection on January 6 or an attempted one, you would not necessarily think that's even a thing. Like your brain would say well nobody's going to believe the Republicans do an insurrection without weapons. And then what have you gone down the January 6 well.

So each of the arguments that are fake narrative arguments, they all have what I call the well. So it goes like this. Let's see if I can roughly do it without preparing. January 6 was an armed