ing. "Oh well, I'm a Democrat. Probably they'll vote Democrat. My leaders are bringing them in, the border's open. Oh, it's to get extra voters." So I think that the Democrats are fooled about the real reason. And I think that Elon Musk, seeing that the Democrats say it out loud, quite reasonably attributes that reason to what we see. Now that's a quite reasonable opinion. They say it, you observe it. It's true that it will create more Democrat voters and it could swing everything. So it's quite reasonable to have that theory.

Here's my theory. If that were true, Biden would have already closed the border because it's not good for him. It's not good for Biden to get reelected. So I believe we have proof that Biden is not in charge. Because nothing could be more clear than Biden should close the border if he wants to get reelected. Would you agree? So it's not coming from a political place because the top guy in the political place couldn't possibly be better off personally to get reelected. Because remember this is a long-term play. Politicians don't think long-term, right? Biden is basically, he's not buying green bananas, if you know what I mean. He's not looking at the long term. He's just trying to get elected. And getting elected, very clearly every Democrat knows it and every Republican knows it, he would just sign an executive order, close the border tomorrow, because we know he can do it. He knows he can do it. Everybody knows he can do it. The fact that he doesn't do it is really strong indication he's not in charge.

So what possible explanation could there be if the top political person who should be wanting it clearly doesn't want it? What else is there? Well, I'm going to go with the obvious, and I'm going to extend this to a larger concept. Everything that's expensive and you don't understand why it's going the way it is is because the CIA or intelligence entities. But I'll just say CIA for short. It seems to me that the most reasonable working assumption is that the CIA, and again I'll just use them for intelligence as a shorthand because there are lots of different entities, but it seems to me they must be coordinating with the cartels to not only control Mexico's government but also to make sure that American interests and manufacturing doesn't get attacked. And it looks like for reasons that are kind of mysterious American interests don't seem to get attacked. And we can conclude that the cartels do run Mexico, the government itself. Because the Mexican military knows where their own border is. If they wanted to control it with Mexican military they would just put their troops there, but they don't. They let the cartels, I say let but that's not what I mean. The cartels control the border. That means they control the country.

Does anybody think that the power that controls the border of the country doesn't control the country? Does anybody think that? That would be ridiculous. So it could be that every time you see a weird distortion where the country is not operating the way you think common sense tells you it should, every bit of your common sense says close the border. Even most Democrats would agree. All common sense, yet it doesn't happen. The only reason I can think of for this and all the other things that don't make sense that are big and expensive is that it's the CIA. And that there's a bigger plan that maybe we don't, and maybe it's a good idea. I don't even know. Maybe it's a good idea.

But imagine the alternative. Let's say the CIA did not work with the cartel. Well, we would not have functional control of the Mexican government, which seems really, really important if they're your neighbor, right? If we didn't control the Mexican government, you don't think Russia would be trying to control it so they could put a little badness on our doorstep just like we do to them? Of course they would. But if you control the cartel and the cartel controls the government, and some Russian guy tries to influence Mexico, what happens? Cartel just kills him and nobody ever hears about it.

So it seems to me obvious that if the CIA is in the business of controlling other countries for the benefit of American interests, usually economic, that we would have to control Mexico. There's no way to do it directly by controlling the government because they're puppets. Instead the best you can do is to partner with, not control, but partner with the cartels and say, look, if you leave our big corporations alone and you let us get what we want in terms of Mexico staying not Russian, then, and I'm just using the Russian thing as an example of anything we don't want, then we'll let you get away with your normal crimes.

Now is there any precedent for that in law enforcement? Has law enforcement ever let somebody like Whitey Bulger do crimes right in front of them because they wanted to control the entity that they controlled? Yeah, isn't Whitey Bulger exactly that example? Right? So and lots of them. There are plenty of examples. So that would actually be a normal thing for our CIA to work with the baddest people in the country, Mexico, for some common interest. Very normal. You would expect so.

My theory is that the idea that Democrats are bringing in extra voters is a CIA cover story for what's really happening. And that it's such a good story that Democrats themselves believe it at the lower levels, but not at the Biden level. At the Biden level he might actually know what's going on.

Now I'm going to make a prediction based on this hypothesis. The prediction is that Trump wins and the cartels are not militarily attacked because he said he would. All the Republicans said they would, but I don't think it's going to happen. I think that you get in office and the CIA sits you down, says here's the deal. If we don't work with the cartels they're going to unleash horrors in this country like you've never seen. The drug traffic will triple and basically we won't own Mexico anymore. They won't cooperate and all the American interests in manufacturing will be at risk. And then they say, so our deal with the devil is we're going to let 100,000 people die of overdoses, but we don't think they're the important people. Right? We don't think they're the important people or we'd protect them. So that's what it looks like to me. Just a hypothesis.

Who do you think was behind ESG, DEI, and wokeness in general? Who was behind that? Now you say to yourself, Scott, that's not the CIA. That sort of came out of Ibram X. Kendi and various people and authors and the WEF, and basically you sort of grew organically and a lot of things. But let me ask you this. Do you think that it got turbocharged by the George Floyd situation? Would you say that's fair to say it was turbocharged by the George Floyd situation? Because you can see it in the data. Like white people just stopped being hired by big corporations. It just stopped, right?

Now who is behind George Floyd? Well, obviously the CIA didn't cause the death. They didn't cause him to be stopped by the police. But what turned George Floyd from an ordinary tragedy, the police action with a tragedy, into the biggest story in the country? Well, the media did, right? The media turned George Floyd, what could have been a story about one person, tragic as it was, it turned into a national story that influences all of our thoughts about everything. How was that done? Well, that was done through social media and the mainstream media making it the biggest story of the year. Why did the mainstream media make it the biggest story of the year? Who controls that? I think the CIA does. Am I wrong? Isn't our media completely subject to what the CIA says is the primary story? Of course it is.

So even all the DEI, ESG, probably it all happened maybe accidentally, but because of the boosting of the George Floyd. Now why would they boost George Floyd? Why would the CIA want to do that? Seems like a bad idea, doesn't it? Well, it would be the number one way to get rid of Trump. It would be the number one way to say, oh all those Republicans who look like Derek Chauvin, look what those whites will do, right? So I believe that George Floyd was really about getting rid of Trump. I believe that it was CIA at least boosted it. It may have had an organic nature to it, but it clearly was boosted like crazy. And I don't believe that any of our top stories are organic. I think our B-level stories that are just sort of interesting are organic, but the top stories I don't think ever are. And the reason is that the CIA can't take that chance. The CIA is in the business of making us think the way they want us to think. They would say for the benefit of the country and to make other countries think the way they want them to think. It's not about the truth. It's about making you think what they want you to think.

So to me it looks like the CIA is the cause of the George Floyd, the racial division, all of the DEI, the massive discrimination against white people. I also wonder if Ibram X. Kendi is organic and natural. Now I don't have any information that would suggest otherwise, but it would be a normal CIA method, as I understand it, to find influencers and to boost influencers that they want to boost. For example, we assume that they boosted Elvis maybe, or well not Elvis, let's say John Wayne. You know, in the old days they'd make the war movies seem awesome so you'd join the military. So I wonder, given the, and let me be honest, Ibram X. Kendi doesn't seem like an intellectual powerhouse. He looks like somebody who must have been boosted by something. You know what I mean? Like Jordan Peterson became a national phenomenon and you listened to him for one minute and you understand why, right? One minute of listening to Jordan Peterson and you automatically know why he's world famous. There's no doubt about it. If you listen to Ibram X. Kendi, now of course I have a cultural block there, but even if you were black and American and you listen to Ibram X. Kendi, would you say that's the smartest guy I've heard lately? I don't know. It feels like he must be boosted because his importance is whack with what he's bringing to the table. Just a theory.

What's behind all the terrible movies, the wokeness? So the CIA probably was behind George Floyd. What about Charlottesville? Remember the Charlottesville hoax? So it was not only a hoax what Trump said about it, which was brought to you by the media. And who controls the media? The CIA. So probably the whole fine people hoax was probably a CIA op. That's my guess. Because all the major media said it was true even though it was obviously not, just totally obviously not true. And that suggests some power behind the throne, power behind the media. CIA. That would be their normal business.

Have you been surprised that there hasn't been a Charlottesville 2? Like what happened to all those people? And aren't there lots more who would want to do a successful march like that from their perspective? It wasn't as successful. You know, hypothetically if they were real and they were actual racists, and a lot of them were, I know a lot of them were for sure they were racists. But if this was a big thing that sort of had its own energy you'd see it again. There'd be another march somewhere. But the fact that it only happened once has op written all over it. Yeah, it doesn't look real.

How about the, we're up to 14 Russian hoaxes, many of them by John Brennan. How many of the Russian hoaxes are just CIA or ex-CIA who basically are still CIA in my opinion? Probably all the Russian hoaxes or maybe half of them or more were just pure CIA. And I think somewhat obviously because Brennan was central to those efforts, you know, the laptop one, etc.

How about all the lawfare against Trump? Do you think the lawfare against Trump is just Democrats knowing what to do? They all sort of know what to do so they just do it. It's like we'll elect us some prosecutors that want to get rid of Trump and then it just happens on its own. Well I would argue that the prosecutors are all funded by Soros. Soros and his organization I believe have a connection to the Atlantic Council which is staffed largely by ex-CIA directors. Soros, the only thing that explains Soros is that he's a CIA asset. Would you agree? The only explanation for Soros is that he's a CIA asset. There's nothing else that makes sense.

So if the CIA wanted to get Trump, how would they do it? They'd have their bank Soros fund a bunch of prosecutors and then they would shop a venue and go after Trump. So I think all of the lawfare is CIA instigated directly or indirectly.

How about the TDS in general and all the other hoaxes? Probably CIA because again they control the media. The media does the hoaxes. If the CIA didn't want the media to present these hoaxes, do you think they would? No. The CIA would call NBC and say this doesn't help us, don't do that one anymore, and it would just stop. It would just stop.

How about the Biden crime family and the fact that it becomes increasingly obvious that, I don't know if it's a crime per se, but that their behavior was sketchy and there was a lot of lying involved. Does it feel to you like the only reason that Biden is president is because the CIA has the goods on him and can control him? And that he was part of the whole Ukraine. Really was a CIA operation and he's knee deep in it. It looks like it to me. Everything about Ukraine can be explained by the CIA. Would you agree? All of it. And we have information now that it's coming out that the CIA was involved since 2014. The Maidan thing, even the shelling of Russians who considered themselves Russians in what was then Ukrainian territory. It all seems to be CIA. So there's that.

How about the Gemini AI and how woke it is? Now do you think I could tie that to the CIA? That'd be quite a stretch, wouldn't it? Watch me do it. The CIA, as we know, has histori