ds your ability to get a good job. So explain to me how America would look different if you accept that the people with the best educations almost always have the power. And you would want them to. You would want them to. We literally go out of our way to elect people and promote people who are better educated. So why would this be the exception? Why would this be the one time that the most educated people in America are not in charge? They should be. If everything is working in a perfectly normal way that's exactly what you would see. So if you send me a big picture of how many Jewish people are in charge of corporations, especially the media, I say that's what I would expect it to look like. What would you expect it to look like if the only explanation was educated people get better jobs? How would that look, right? So that's my challenge to you.

Let's talk about Tucker and Putin. How many of you watched the Tucker interview, Tucker Carlson with Vladimir Putin? Quite a few of you. Let me give you my summary of it and a few other thoughts. Number one, the question was, is Putin like really, really smart and he's all there? And that's mostly what I'm seeing today. I'm seeing a lot of smart observers saying that Putin guy, he really is together. And one of the evidences that people are using is that he gave a long history lesson as an answer to one of Tucker's first questions. He gave an extended history lesson with dates and names and it was like a thousand-year history of Ukraine and Russia and how everything came to be. And many of you use that as an example of how on the ball Putin is, that he could do that. To which I say I didn't see that at all. You know, obviously it's subjective. But what I saw is somebody who couldn't read a room. Because wasn't the whole point of Putin talking to Tucker to convince non-Russians? He wasn't talking to Russia because Russia seems to be on his side. He was talking to everybody not in Russia. And if he believed that that thousand-year history lesson was persuasive to Americans, that's just sort of dumb. That seems a little clueless to me. It seems like not reading the room at all. It feels like an old man who nobody knows how to say no to, so he's just going to ramble because he can. It looked like he was showing off that he had a grasp of history. And that showing off seemed to be his dominant motivation. It did not seem like he was trying to convince anybody of anything, which was stupid and absurd. And to me it looked like age-related.

Now I'm completely aware that you all disagree with me. I think maybe 5 percent saw it the way I saw it. And here's my take, and you will also disagree with this but I'm not going to back off it. We've been looking at our president for a long time, Biden. If you have in your mind that Biden is what a president looks like and then you saw Putin, it is quite natural that you would say my God, Putin is well put together. But you know, compared to what we're seeing it's terrible. If RFK Jr. had been president for three years and every time he talked, whether you agreed with him or not, agreeing with him is different, but every time he talked it was smart, do you think that Putin would look so clever then? No. It's a comparison thing. Now you're going to reject my frame. You're going to say no Scott, I'm not comparing him to Biden because I'm mentally not doing that. I'm telling myself not to and I'm examining my own thoughts and I know I'm not. I'm definitely not doing that. Well you're wrong because you can't not do it. You can't turn it off. You are only a comparison pattern-recognizing machine. You cannot make your brain be something it's not. You compare things to other things, period. You don't know how to turn that off. And if you were comparing Putin to anybody it was definitely Biden. And you can't turn that feature off. And so it will guarantee that you see Putin as better than he is because your comparison is so bad, right?

So I think that's why I saw Putin looking old and looking like he was rattling on like an old man who didn't know that basically he couldn't read the room. He didn't seem to have the facility to know what would come across more effectively. Now toward the end I'm going to talk about Israel and some persuasion that they're doing and you're going to see the difference. All right, you're going to see the difference between good persuasion and bad persuasion. And that was bad persuasion. I think Putin failed. I think he looked nervous. I thought he looked like somebody, somebody said this so I'm stealing this, he looked like somebody who's not used to answering hard questions because he doesn't get them. So I don't know that we learned anything. Do you think we learned anything? We heard Putin believes that the CIA blew up the Nord Stream pipeline. If you were paying attention you already believe that to be true. He believes that there's some historical precedent that gives Russia some control over Ukraine. He believes that NATO was the aggressor and you know they've been warned many times. We kind of knew that. So I don't know that we learned anything new. It wasn't news-making.

Putin says he tried to basically be on the same side as the United States and Europe a few times. Once with Bill Clinton in which he said, do you think Russia would ever be able to join NATO, which is funny. And Bill Clinton actually thought maybe so but his people told him no. Who do you think his people are? Who do you think told Bill Clinton no, you cannot make peace with Russia so productively that they're actually part of our own military protection? Well I assume it was the military industrial complex. And I assume it's because there are too many people who went to school to learn how to be spies against Russia. I think it was just the Deep State said he can't do that. So I think that Putin is telling us that even Clinton was not in charge. And I think he's telling us that Biden is not in charge. And there seems to be a suggestion that maybe the CIA or some shadowy group is really running the country. But then the weirdest part is Putin kept claiming that he was acting sort of petulant, that his offers to negotiate and things like that were not taken seriously. And at one point there was a Minsk agreement so he thought there was an agreement but then Boris Johnson shot it down. Now if only I had some way to do a Boris Johnson impression. Boris Johnson shot it down. So why do you think Boris Johnson shot down something that looked like a reasonable agreement? Probably because whoever got to Bill Clinton also got to Boris Johnson. You know, not the exact same people but something like it. So now we've seen several instances where the leaders, or the people we thought were the leaders, were all about the peace but they couldn't have the power to do it. Well why don't the leaders have power to make peace? Probably because it's exactly what you think it is. They're not in charge, at least of the war decisions.

All right. And Putin pointed out that the CIA did a coup in Ukraine, you know, right in the front steps of Russia. And what else? How many people thought Tucker was scared he was going to be murdered at any minute? So to his credit, let me say this unambiguously, Tucker sat across from Putin and probably asked him the hardest questions he's ever been asked and was making Putin pretty uncomfortable. And I gotta say I saw a cartoon meme of Tucker leaving the interview with a wheelbarrow to carry his own balls because they were so big. So I thought Tucker did a good job.

However, well let's talk more about that and then I'll give you the other side of the coin. So one of the things that Tucker asked him is, you know, why don't you give us back that captive? Is it Wall Street Journal? There's a reporter over there that Russia says was a spy. A Wall Street Journal reporter, yeah, young guy. So they're holding him. But Putin was saying that that needs to be negotiated by the spies. So he says his spies and America's spies need to work it out and it's probably going to be some kind of a deal where they get something, we get something to get him back. Now his claim, Putin's claim, is that the guy is actually a spy and that whether he worked for anybody or not he was involved with getting secrets and passing them on. Do you think that's true? Do you think it's true that he got some secrets to pass on? Or do you think that Putin just made up something so they could capture another American so they'd have more to negotiate? Who knows? Yeah, you should not make any assumption about whether that's true.

My take on the entire thing is that Putin seemed to be lying at least half of the time. That was my take. It looked like he was lying at least half of the time. Now by lying I mean that he's leaving out context and not telling you the full story and spinning it, you know, that sort of thing. So let me give you this warning. I've told you about what I call the documentary effect. If you watch an hour-long documentary and it's just taking one-sided point of view, you will think you've been convinced. You will always be convinced by a documentary because it doesn't show the other side. Well likewise if you saw Putin talking for two hours and you thought you learned something, consider that it's the opposite. Consider that it made you dumber. You got that? Because what Putin said was things you already knew but then there were a bunch of spinny things where there were things that it was the Russian view. If you believe you got smarter because you heard Putin talk, it's the opposite. Yeah, very the opposite. He made you dumber because you might have believed some of the things he said and there they should not be believed because it's a documentary effect problem where there's nobody there to say, yeah but what about this context, and aren't you leaving this out, and those things. So every one of you who thought, wow after seeing that I have a