mazing that we would disagree on this? I don't know what's true by the way. I don't know what's true. I do know that doctors say that there was one group that probably came out ahead. Now the reason I ask is because I'm in that group. But I don't know if it's true. Maybe we'll find out if it's true from this lawsuit. But maybe. And I just point out that most of the people who mock me because I got the first two shots—I didn't get any boosters after that but I got the first two—I'm in that group. I'm dead in the center of the comorbidity because I have asthma, which at the time they thought was a comorbidity. I'm not sure it is, but it can't be good to have a lung infection and asthma at the same time. So yeah, I don't know. Just keep that in mind. Keep an eye on it.

There's a Dutch political commentator, Eva Vlaardingerbroek, and she's talking out, speaking out about the climate scam. By the way, I remember climate change used to be the thing that was always trending on the old Twitter. And now what trends is climate scam. Climate scam is trending on at least my version of it almost every day. So it feels like there's been a sort of a quiet but major shift. I mean when Bill Gates came out and said yeah the temperature might go up but we'll handle it, I felt like that was when it all fell apart. At least the you're all going to die from climate change messaging, I think it all fell apart. And then when people realized that nuclear power with all of its problems was a probable solution to a lot of our problems, that took away a lot of the energy because we had a solution, we just had to use it. It takes all the energy out of it.

So I think that the momentum or the natural swing of the pendulum is that scam will be trending more than hey everything's falling apart. But I want to tell you what this Dutch political commentator—who I noticed follows me on X so might be listening right now and saying get to it, what are you going to say about me? So in case you're listening, Eva—she said recently, talking about the climate scam so to speak, quote: "The people behind this want to establish a one world government, a new world order in which they decide what we eat, when we eat, where we travel, when we travel, who we meet and what we are allowed to spend our money on. Basically control over every single aspect of our lives. They don't want us to eat foods that make us strong. They want us to eat synthetic meat created by Bill Gates. They want us to eat bugs. They want us to drink soy milk so that we'll become weak and obedient and we do as they say."

Does that sound—I want to get a reading of the audience—is that a good summary of reality? How many would say yeah that sums it up? I'm seeing spot on, yes, yes, yes, kind of, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. So that's right down the middle of what my audience believes, right? I don't believe any of that. I don't believe any of it. Because the motivation part doesn't really make sense. Like I can't imagine there's somebody in a room saying if only we can get them to eat bugs and soy milk. Do you think there's really somebody having that conversation behind closed doors? Really? Let me try the really. You think there's really somebody behind closed doors who is planning to make humans eat bugs but not because they're planning to make money? That you're saying that it's more of a philosophy? Really? I don't believe any of that.

Here's why I don't believe it. Let me give you a reason, right? It's poor form to say I just don't believe it. I need to make my case, wouldn't you say? And I haven't made my case. Here's my case. Every bit of it can be explained by incompetence plus greed. That's it. You can explain all observations by incompetence plus somebody wants to make some money. That's it. Now on top of that I do think there are some people who have some idea of how the world would be better. Bill Gates being one of them. But to imagine that Bill Gates, if he wanted to do all these things, do you think he would be conspiring with other people or would Bill Gates want to be the one who's in charge?

So here's what's logically wrong with the thing. It imagines that there are all these powerful people who are on the same page. Have you ever met powerful people? The one thing you can always say about powerful successful people is they're never on the same page. They're never on the same page. The thing that makes them powerful and successful is a thing that says I've got a better idea than you have. And that never turns off. Do you think Bill Gates is Bill Gates and then when he gets in a meeting people will push him around and tell him what to think? I don't think so.

So unless you can find out that there's one powerful person in charge and everybody else is bowing to them for some obvious reason like fear or money or something, none of it makes sense. There's no model of human behavior in which the most powerful people by coincidence are all part of this major scheme and they all have the same idea about how to run it. Because the real world, anything you do that changes the real world will create winners and losers. Let's see if you agree with that first. Any major change to the whole system of the world, which is what we're talking about, a major major change, will destroy some people completely, put them out of business. But some other people might be able to rise.

So do you think that this big collection of bankers and Bill Gates and the World Economic Forum and all these heads of industries, do you think that they all—you believe they're all working together in this big elite thing? You believe all those elites think that they would individually be better off? That's insane. That there's no real world analogy where you've ever seen that happen anywhere. Even the government of every country. Let me take the simplest example. Pick any country that's a democracy. Well not even a democracy. Pick any country. Look at their elected leaders and you tell me all on the same page. You know why? Why doesn't Congress in the United States collude so that everyone in Congress comes off good and maybe at the expense of the rest of the public? But why don't they do that? Why are they against each other and fighting like crazy? Even Republicans fight Republicans. Democrats fight Democrats. Why? But you believe that although every example in the history of humanity, every example the powerful people are actually opposed to each other every time, but this is the first exception. And so the biggest thing ever. And that all the elites are kind of on the same page. If we can get them to eat bugs they'll buy more oil or whatever it is. If we can get them to eat bugs then we'll be able to raise their taxes. If we can get them to have enough soy they won't, my own military won't be able to fight. I don't think soy does that to you. But none of this tracks. None of this makes sense even in a general directional sense. None of it makes sense because it assumes something about human behavior that's absurd.

What is the thing that you always say about why Marxism and socialism doesn't work? It creates dictators but the real reason is that it ignores human behavior. Humans are very predictable. If you say you know what if you work harder than your peers you're not going to get anything extra but you'll get to share what you made with everybody, will people work as hard as if you say hey you're going to be a superstar and you'll be better than everybody and you have more stuff if you work hard? There's no question which one works, right? The reason capitalism makes more stuff than socialism or communism is that it's just a better system. But suddenly an entire hundred thousand years of consistent human behavior suddenly changed because of the World Economic Forum and climate change or something. Now there isn't any chance, there isn't any chance that there's anybody plotting to make you drink soy milk and eat bugs.

The people who want you to eat bugs if they exist are probably two types. There's somebody in the bug-eating business who wants to make money so they're seeding the media with stories and they're trying to get it in. So there's clearly a commercial factor here. Obviously nothing gets this much attention unless somebody's trying to make money off it. The news doesn't just tell you what's interesting. They tell you what somebody who makes money wanted them to say. That's how it works when it's about commerce. And if you don't understand, and then on the other side people like the World Economic Forum, there are people who like to tell you the interesting thing that they heard. It's in the news. Maybe it's futuristic, maybe it's forward-looking. So some people like to talk about the potential of things to come but it doesn't mean they need it or want it or it's the only thing that could happen or they're going to force you to do it. None of that.

One of the things that conservatives universally have as a blind spot is that people are not that coordinated. To me that's the big blind spot. Now there are definitely things that seem coordinated. In other words the Deep State does seem to act like one big blob. But when you look at the Deep State, are not their motivations the obvious o