ls comments. You're not watching me if you're in Brazil unless you have a VPN, I guess. But Brazil has censored the Locals feed. So if you're on the Locals platform, you can't be watched in Brazil. Now let me ask you this. Do you think the Brazilians came up with that on their own? Do you think the Brazilian government said, oh, we gotta block that Locals platform? I doubt it. Sort of feels like maybe our government might have been a little bit behind that. So it's illegal to watch me in Brazil. To which I say, excellent. Excellent. Hey Brazilians, guess what? You can't watch. Why do you think they won't let you watch me, Brazilians? Do you think they won't let you watch me because they're trying to monitor the poor quality entertainment and they've decided, oh, that's just not good entertainment, can't watch that guy? You think that's why I'm blocked? Nope, nope.

Well, and the other question is, is it about me or is it about somebody else who's on Locals? Because you know it could be somebody else who's on Locals. But it's the same issue. They're not blocking me because I'm wrong and they're not blocking other people because they're wrong. They're only going to block you if you're right. It's telling the truth that's the problem. People lying is everybody. If they blocked people who lied, they'd have to close all of social media because it's pretty much 80% lies. But Locals is the special lies. Oh, these are the special kind. We better block these lies. These are the terrible ones. No, it's because it's the truth and they're preventing the truth. There's no other way to look at it.

All right, let's, here's my theme today. The gaslighting is not working so well. As you know, you've been living in a gaslit environment and the gaslighters have been telling you quite a few things. For example, 2016, the election was largely dominated by the Russia collusion hoax that we know is a Democrat slash intelligence agency hoax. But in 2020 we had the Hunter's laptop hoax. Oh, that's a Russian hoax. And then Biden ran on the fine people hoax. So that's two elections in a row dominated by hoaxes. And in both cases the Democrats and the intelligence people created them.

In 2024, just for consistency, the main theme is the January 6 hoax, also known as the Trump is a threat to democracy hoax, which goes well with the 91 indictments hoax. Now the 91 indictments really happened, but if you look at the quality of them and the types of things he's indicted for, it all looks like hoaxes to me, or an op if you prefer. And let me tell you, if you have three elections in a row and all three of them are quite obviously hoax-driven events, you can't say it's a coincidence. It would be more accurate to say that gaslighting the public is the operating system of the country. And there is the most basic thing you need to know about America is that nothing's real. It's the most important thing you need to know, that nothing's real. And when I say nothing, I mean nothing about politics, you know, and war, which is politics.

So we'll give you some examples of that. But I'd like to offer a competing hypothesis to this. So the first hypothesis is that bad people are intentionally making up rumors and conspiracy theories and gaslighting the public. But I'd like to try out a little pattern recognition for you. Do you know how I always say that Democrats appear mentally ill, but we don't really mention what that mental illness is? Sometimes we say TDS, which is a real thing and a genuine illness. But it seems deeper than that, doesn't it? Like there's something below that that's causing that. And I'd like to suggest that if you were to look at the dominant patterns coming from Democrats, you can actually identify the specific mental illness. Allow me to try it.

Did you have, have you noticed the Tucker Carlson theory that they blame you for what they're doing? So whatever they're doing, they blame you for it. You've all seen it. What mental illness or condition is that common to? Somebody blames you for what they're doing, but not just once, all the time, all the time. If you're late for dinner, they say you. If they're late, they say you're late. If they're cheating on you, they say you're cheating on them. If they're mean to you, they say you're mean to them. If they're giving you no attention, they say you're giving me no attention. Am I right? Now, 100% of people who have experience with narcissists will say, oh yeah, yeah, you can't even believe it. Like if you see it once you say, well, that's weird, maybe just an oddity. But if you're in a situation where over and over and over again they're blaming you for specifically what they're doing, that's narcissism.

Here's another element of narcissism and see if you can find this pattern. A narcissist is only interested in what you can do for them. Am I right? That's a basic definition of a narcissist. Not even the least bit interested in you. It's what can you do for me? How can I get your resources transferred to me? How can I get all of your attention and all of your everything to me? What am I doing for you? Yeah, it's what can you do for me. In this case, the me would be Democrats. And the me would be, hey, let's do some DEI so that the things you have can be transferred to us. Why? Well, because of all the discriminating you do against us. That's why. To which I say that's exactly the opposite of what has been happening in this country for 30 years. White men have been overtly, directly, massively discriminated against for 30 years. But what do the narcissists say? They say you're discriminating against me. And then they ask you to pay for it. That's exactly what narcissists do. They say you're the problem even though you're the one the narcissist is doing all that and you're not. And that you must pay me for it. Like you owe me. There's something you better do to make up for the fact that you're so bad, even though they're just projecting.

Now if you go down the line and see the consistency of it, the thing that you thought was socialism probably isn't. The thing you thought was socialism probably isn't. There is some of that and they're definitely Marxist, etc. So I'm not going to say it doesn't exist. But I think we're confusing the narcissism, which is you owe me because you've been bad, you better give me some stuff, with some kind of actual political theory. Because very few people have a political theory. They just want stuff and they're just sort of acting out their projection plus their sense of entitlement. Once you see it, you can't unsee it.

Now I've also made the observation that a lot of the evil people in the news, you'll hear this terrible story about somebody doing some woke thing that's just evil, and then you'll see a picture of the person and they have a demonic face. You know I'm doing it now in case you're listening to audio. I'm going to do the demonic face. Do you remember Judge Engoron? You look at his face and the first thing you think is, what the hell am I looking at? There's something wrong with your face. It looks demonic. It literally looks demonic. But the demonic part is just an interpretation. What it really looks like is mentally ill and specifically narcissistic. The narcissists, I think their faces actually reveal them sometimes, not all the time. So if you think you're seeing something that looks like demonic faces, you know, the eyes, crazy eyes, I think it's just the narcissists all in the same team.

And the narcissists are telling you that you're such a bad discriminator, you better give your stuff to the people you discriminated against. So that certainly is a big part of the gaslighting. But certainly it's coming from the top on the Democrat side. The things that Republicans believe that are not true usually bubble up from the bottom. They're just some people or persons who has a theory and other people go, ah, I think I'll believe that one. And it's not coordinated intelligence experts working with the top of the Democrats to create a hoax over the whole country. You don't really see that on the Republican side. But it's the normal operating system. We've seen it over three elections already of the Democrats.

But it's not just them. Defense Secretary Mark Esper has called Trump a threat to democracy. Look for the pattern. What exactly is a threat to democracy? Let me think. Weaponizing these NGOs and fake fact checkers and the FBI to suppress free speech on the other side. That's what I would call assault on democracy. So while they were actively taking away your free speech by working with the social media platforms in the news, they were complaining that Trump is going to take away democracy while they were doing it, like actively, really hard, working at it at the same time.

If you look at the Georgia case, the Georgia, mostly Republicans were passing laws to tighten security on their election system. Every Democrat voted against it. Because why would you vote against tightening security? Well, it's because they don't want a fair election because they're trying to protect democracy by making sure that you don't know exactly who voted. That's how they're going to protect democracy. Projection. It's just projection.

All right, here's another one. Have you seen this too? I turn on the news. There'll be a new poll about Biden versus Trump. And the poll will say Trump is leading in six out of seven tight races or tight states, you know, the battleground states. And he's winning overall by whatever number. And then somebody will say it to Biden or Biden's people and they'll say, you're looking at last year's polls or last week's polls. New polls just came out. Biden is ahead in six out of seven polls. To which I say, would that be in the newspaper or something? Like there's not, are you saying that Fox News wouldn't report that? Are they just skipping some polls? Is that happening? Because I also watch CNN and MSNBC. I haven't seen them display any polls where Biden is leading. In fact, they only talk about him being behind. Is this pure gaslighting where they actually just say no, Biden is actually ahead in the polls? You're looking at the wrong ones. They look right in your eyes and tell you that there exist polls that are the opposite of everything you've seen. How do they do that? And their press doesn't even call them out about it. They just say no, the polls are the opposite of what everything you've seen. Yeah, Biden's doing fine. Yep. Everything you've seen is opposite of what you think you saw. The level of gaslighting is insane.

Now who lies like that? Narcissists. Narcissists are the only ones who could punch you in the stomach and say stop punching me in the stomach. And you'd be like, you literally just punched me in the stomach and I've literally never even touched you. Stop punching me in the stomach. Like to lie at that level, look you right in the eye and say no, the polls are all pro-Biden. I don't know what you're talking about. That's only narcissists. That is not even normal politics. Even politicians don't lie like that. You know, they say something more weaselly, right? They don't lie directly like that on something that's the easiest thing in the world to check. Narcissism.

All right. There's some interesting charts going around. Zach Goldberg, I think, pulled them together. He's sort of an anti-wokeness activist. And two charts. One of them found that liberal white people have the following belief, that white people are far more violent in the United States than black people. They're the only group that think that. I don't think black people think that. Only white liberals. So white conservatives don't think that. Only white liberals believe that white people are more violent than black Americans.

Now it could be that they're answering the question differently. It could be that they're including wars and colonization and slavery. If you see the whole history of wars and colonization, slavery, white people definitely had a hand in the violence. I'm going to give you that. If you just looked at total number of people killed, white people are right up there. We're very competitive in the killing millions of people category. I'll give you that. But if you're talking about normal social violence in the United States, it's not even close. The actual numbers. And I'm not making any kind of genetic or cultural or any kind of a comment. I'm just saying those are the numbers. You know, the why of it gets to a more interesting question, but we're not talking about the why, just the number.

But it's worse than that. It's not just that. But according to Zach's charts, that the same group, the white liberals, believe that black Americans on average have higher IQ than white people. Now again, I'm not going to get into any conversation about genetics or culture or systemic racism. I think the question about the cause is an interesting one that I'm not going to talk about. It's just the data itself. How in the world could you live in America and think that? The data has shown this stuff and there's only one group that thinks it.

Now what would be true about this group? They're the craziest group. They actually can't, they're actually seeing the world backwards like upside down and inside out fairly consistently. Everything they see is the opposite of what is actually true.

Well, I'll tell you my own theory on differences in income, let's say income instead of IQ because IQ is too divisive. Just say difference in income. To me the biggest difference is that the school system discriminates against black kids. To me that's the biggest thing. Now when I say discriminates against them, I just mean because poor places have bad schools. Teachers unions don't give you much choice. So there's not a free market to give you options. So it's more of a teachers union has destroyed the ability for anybody in a low-income area to get a good education. So if you're starting from a low income, it's hard to climb out.

All right. What else do they believe? So on MSNBC last night, Joy Reid, who is, as you know, a disgruntled Trump impersonator if you've seen her haircut, she had a guest called Steve Hassan who builds himself as an expert on cults. And the expert on cults said that the MAGA people are a cult.

Now I've got a little bit of insight about this situation. So Hassan also interviewed me, I think it was during the 2016 cycle. So I had a long conversation with him and he, I think he might have been writing or had finished his book on cults. But he wanted to tie the MAGA movement, you know, make it a cult because he could sell books and he was a cult expert and very, very Democratic, it seems. So here's what I learned. Number one, the cult expert grew up in a cult. The cult expert grew up in a cult. So that's one of the things that makes him an expert. The cult expert escaped that cult. Good job. Now that's a sign of credibility, wouldn't you say? If you escaped a cult and then immediately went to become a Democrat and just joined another cult without knowing it.

And so let me describe what a cult is. And I also discovered that the cult expert actually didn't know what a cult was. Just think about that. Actually doesn't know what a cult is. Because the definition of a cult is, you know, it's for the benefit of the leader, not the people. You cut off communication from the outside and you punish people if they get outside of your cult and you make sure that the external information doesn't come in. That's the Democrats. The Democrats are literally censoring information in like this massive censoring operation involving NGOs and fact checkers and the fake media and the intelligence groups. That's a cult.

A cult is actively putting a lot of effort into making sure you can't see the other argument. Look at Brazil. Brazil is literally censoring me right now. Who's in the cult now? Let's say you're a MAGA Republican. Can you name any Republican who doesn't have access to all the information on the left? Most of the arguments that the Republicans make come from a full understanding of what the other argument is. It's really an argument against the other arguments, which requires you to know what the other arguments are. So the MAGA people are fighting for the First Amendment, opposite of a cult. They have full access to all information, opposite of a cult. And never in my life have I heard anybody ostracized for leaving the Republican Party and becoming a Democrat. I mean at the public level, you know, sort of a Kinzinger thing, they'll definitely get mocked. But in the regular public, if your neighbor decided to re-register from Republican to Democrat, would you stop inviting them to the picnics? No, it doesn't work that way on the right.

Have you heard about dating? Apparently if you're a Democrat and you see somebody in a dating app who's a Republican, that's a hard no. I will not even associate with the people outside my cult. But it doesn't work the other way. The conservative men are still willing to date anybody who wants to date them. So I would say that the Democrats show all of these signs of a cult based on the standard definitions. And then they bring the most hypnotized cult member on to project and say the other people are in a cult. It's very consistent.

Now I was mocking him on X yesterday by showing a picture of his wide eyes. He's got the Charles Manson eyes, you know, the wide eyes, the crazy eyes. So there you go. Somebody saying their wife is a liberal. Yeah, so that's another case of gaslighting and projection. But I think the gaslighting wall is starting to break here.

Are three RFK Jr. stories that he just made in the last day or so. So apparently RFK Jr. doesn't believe that January 6 was an insurrection and he's saying it publicly. So how would you explain if you're a Democrat that one of the most storied and famous Democrat names, who even if you don't like him you know he's really well researched and smart and he doesn't just make stuff up as far as I know, and he's telling you there's no real evidence this was an insurrection. And he says for the same reasons the Republicans say. Well, they came to an insurrection without guns. I mean really, there's no evidence of any planning and they looked everywhere. No evidence of any planning at all. You know, there were obviously 1% who were bad people and nobody's questioning that. All right, so that's one thing RFK Jr. said.

The other thing is he's calling out the fake jobs report. Remember yesterday I said I wasn't even going to tell you what the numbers were on employment because all employment numbers are fake in an election year. You know the incumbent is always going to fake them. But RFK Jr. said the good news and bad news. The good news is that the economy added 691,000 jobs in March. Bad news is that they're all part-time jobs. The full-time jobs actually fell by 6,000. So he's calling out his own team for gaslighting the public on economics.

So RFK Jr., famous Democrat, is calling out the Democrats for gaslighting on the insurrection hoax correctly and for gaslighting on the fake job numbers correctly. And that he also talked about the CIA killing Uncle JFK. And apparently he's friends, RFK Jr. is friends with Woody Harrelson. And Woody Harrelson's dad, according to RFK Jr., is one of the people who definitely was in on the assassination of his uncle. And he's actually talked to Woody and Woody confirms the whole thing. Apparently Woody confirms his father was part of the assassination and it was just a CIA plot exactly like he thought it was.

And RFK Jr. says the CIA, by the way this was on the Hodge Twins podcast. Is it Hodes with an S? Is it Hodge with an S on the end? The Hodge Twins. Hodes. Give me a fact check on that anyway. Those guys are doing a great job building the brand and also having interesting guests and making news. So I recommend their podcast. It's the Hodge Twins. So look for them. And the RFK Jr. interview in particular is pretty good.

And he points out that the CIA was behind Vietnam. The CIA was behind, and the mafia worked together to try to take out Castro because the mafia didn't like that Castro closed their casinos in Cuba. And Kennedy points out accurately that no one was punished for killing Kennedy. No one was punished for it. The members of our own government killed the president and to this day got away with it. We even know who they were and they still got away with it. And it's not even in the history books. Not only did they get away with it but history doesn't even record it. You know, there's no kids learning this, that the CIA killed his uncle.

He also said, so he said why would they stop? The intelligence people and whoever was behind it, why would they stop doing things if they get away with them? They overthrew 80 countries in the United States and something's going on with Brazil right now. Why would they stop? It's totally working. Good point.

RFK Jr. also says that Joe Biden is not in possession of his faculties. So an actual Democrat saying no, he's not in possession. And the argument he gives is that he says that the Joe Biden he knows and has known forever would have given him Secret Service protection. So RFK Jr. didn't get Secret Service protection and certainly qualified. And it looks like the bad guys who killed his uncle are trying to get him killed. I think there's no other way to interpret it than the same people who killed his uncle are trying to kill him but make it look like an accident just by leaving him unprotected.

And he thinks the government is being run by anonymous men in lanyards, meaning the CIA basically. All right. And then when the Hodge Twins said, quote, "sounds like our democracy is dead," this is what RFK Jr. said about our democracy, about the United States. RFK Jr. about the United States, quote, "Yeah, it's Kabuki theater. That we don't have a republic and that we haven't had it for a long time." Now that's what I've been telling you, right? That I think the Republic ended probably in the 60s and that the anonymous men with lanyards have clearly been running things since then. And RFK Jr.'s exactly on the same page. Now I think he influenced me more than I got it from anywhere else. So it's not a coincidence I guess.

Well, let's see. The Rock said he would not endorse Biden. I think you already heard that. But Aaron Rupar called it a cowardly word salad thing to say. Now what was the word salad? What the Rock said, he didn't want to endorse Biden this time because he did last time, because he said it caused him something that tears me up in my guts, which is division. How was that unclear? Where's the word salad? He said supporting Biden caused division. Now I interpreted that as division in his personal life, meaning that he couldn't hang out with his buddies without being mocked. I'm just reading that. That's a little mind reading on my part. I don't know that. But that's what it feels like. That maybe he got too much pushback from his manly, manly men fans who are more likely to be Republican anyway.

I saw Mike Cernovich saying that some of these people who people like me keep talking about are not what I think. They're not organic. So The Rock and Bill Maher and anybody else. I think there are a few others. Oh, Charlamagne the God. So I think Mike thinks it's more of some kind of a trick or an op or something. The way I look at it is it doesn't matter whether it's an op or not. What matters is it's creating a social proof and it's making it safe for other people who might be saying, hey, I'm starting to think the problems on our side, that they could say it out loud because The Rock said it or Charlamagne said it. It's a lot easier for a Democrat to say something anti-DEI or think something anti-DEI if they know somebody that is famous for being on their team just called it garbage in public. Or if they thought they were voting for less division when they got Biden but now The Rock told them no, it's actually more division. So just hearing it from somebody on their own team is a whole different persuasion than hearing it from the other team. If the other team says that you just put up your walls and go blah blah blah other team. But if it's coming from inside your house, RFK Jr., The Rock, Charlamagne the God, and Bill Maher to name a few, I think that that's persuasive in the social proof sense.

So whether or not any of these people are working some kind of an op, which I don't quite know how to connect those dots to make it anything but organic, I think it's organic. I think they have different reasons, just four people with four completely different reasons. But that they're just willing to say something that would have been harder to say a year ago.

All right. Margaret Sullivan writing in The Guardian is perplexed that the public is not understanding how good the economy is and thinks that journalists have to do a better job of selling the economy so that Biden can look better. Now aside from the fact that this is obviously just a pure Democrat hack, here is a real problem. Do journalists think that they're capable of writing about the economy? Does Margaret Sullivan think she's capable of understanding the economy? Journalists are the last people who should be writing about the economy. Now if you're an economist and you write, that's fine. Because if you're an economist and you're also a writer, then you're going to have some good opinions. Like let's say Krugman. Come on, you're not going to let me say that without pushing me back. Krugman, it's a punchline. You're famous for being one of the most wrong economists in all the world.

And Margaret Sullivan pointed to Krugman as an example of somebody who's trying to set people right. Imagine being a Democrat and thinking that Krugman is your gold standard for accurate economic assessments. Do they really believe that? Do they not know that he's just a Democrat and that anything he says starts from being a Democrat and then he can work the economics into his story? How do they not notice that?

Well anyway, let me tell you what's true, Margaret Sullivan. Would you be aware that the reason the jobs are growing so quickly is because we just came off a pandemic? Would she be smart enough to know that? Would she be smart enough to know that the great jobs numbers, like RFK Jr. says, are not really so great? Is she going to tell you that those numbers will certainly be revised because it's an election year and the people reporting them are all in the bag for Democrats? Do you think the journalist would know that? And if she knew it, would she report it? Do you think the journalist knows that Krugman has not gotten everything right? Do you think she knows that the reason the GDP is doing well and even employment, I would say, is that the government is spending itself into oblivion and death spiral and buying too many weapons for war? Yeah, we're spending a lot. The government spending is a huge part of that anyway.

Do you think that Margaret Sullivan knows that affordability is a better measure of the economy than your wages went up 4%? Do you think she knows that your 4% wage increase doesn't let you move out of your parents' house? That's the issue. You can't buy a house, can't live on your own, can't start a family. If you can't reproduce, your economy is completely broken. Maybe there's more than that that's broken. But if your people stopped reproducing because of money, your economy is not only not good, it's fatal. Let me say that again. The current economy is discouraging reproduction. That's fatal for the entire country, guaranteed.

So would Margaret Sullivan say yeah but your wages are up 4% and employment looks good with all these part-time jobs? Would she be able to see what's really going on? A journalist, not an economist. Would she know that college expenses are so ridiculous that the old way of getting ahead doesn't work? It's just unavailable basically for more people. Does she know that even though the statistics look good, when people fill up their tank of gas and it's three figures, you don't forget that. Last time I did a fill up over $100, was it ever $100 under Trump? Ever? I don't think it was. Was it? Yeah. So I don't, I'm not looking at what happened with the price of aluminum. I'm looking at my gas when I buy groceries and I look at the grocery bill. Does that look cheap to me or does it look like 40% higher than it was on Trump? Now I don't care they went down 2% on the cucumber since yesterday. I just look at my number and it's just a big old number that I'd never seen until Biden was the president.

All right. So basically journalists shouldn't even write about the economy if they understand it so poorly. And if they're looking to their own economists to give them what's true, they're looking at the Krugman types who are not economists per se. They're more like political figures and writers who happen to have some economic experience.

All right. Holman Jenkins has a Wall Street Journal opinion piece about the upcoming October disinformation plan that we all know is coming. All right. So he mentions that in 2016 the Russian collusion, 2020 was the laptop story, and now we're dealing with the January 6 insurrection hoax and the it's the end of democracy hoax.

Here's how you know that the CIA is behind the January 6 insurrection hoax. I don't think you've ever heard this before. Who would be the greatest experts in our country about whether an insurrection did happen, at least attempted, or it didn't happen? That would be the CIA because they literally are in the business of staging insurrections in other countries. So they would certainly be the experts to know if this was or was not. Wouldn't you love to have them give you an opinion? But I don't remember hearing them. The only ones I remember are the ones like Brennan and Clapper and the ones who are clearly illegitimate liars, you know, the confirmed liars anyway.

I don't know if we have to wait for a new hoax or if they'll just use January 6 and their insurrection hoax to do it. The Biden administration is making it harder to fire bureaucrats, which presumably is because they expect Trump to be president and to clean house. So they're doing some kind of little technical change that would change the designation of some people to make them impossible to fire so that Trump would be handicapped by having all disloyal people on his staff or in the government. Great, great, terrific. What exactly is the benefit of making it harder to fire people who are not doing a good job or you can't trust? What's the benefit of that? I can't think of one.

Well, here's some interesting news. Two dozen of the January 6 protesters have filed a lawsuit against the Capitol Police for all of their alleged violent and historic gross indifference, dereliction of duty, and injury and all that. Now I don't know if anything will come from that but it's more evidence that Republicans have grown a spine and they've realized that if they don't fight back they will be lawyered out of existence. And so it appears that a number of prominent and powerful Republicans have banded together. Probably there's somebody funding this. My guess is there's some external force who's putting the money up to make this lawsuit happen. And so it appears that Republicans have developed an infrastructure for funding legal responses and that feels important because that's definitely mutually assured destruction. And it looks like Republicans are going to have to destroy the careers and lives of maybe dozens of Democrats. Some of them won't deserve it but it probably is a necessary step to get balance.

Let's see. So four-term Louisiana Republican Clay Higgins, he said that he's claiming that the FBI agents entrapped the U.S. Capitol rioters on January 6. So he says that they brought in a big bunch of ghost buses and that they're guilty of all that. Now here's the thing. The government apparently will not tell us how many of their people were on the ground that day. That's still true, right? The FBI has never told us how many of the agents were there. Can you confirm that? I think that's true. They haven't told us. And what can you conclude from the fact that you know some were there? I don't think there's any question that they were there. I don't even think anybody's doubting that. It would only be a question of how many. If there were three people you say, oh okay, they didn't have that much influence. If it was 50 people then you might assume that the reason was not to stop things or watch things but to cause things because that's a lot of people. So the fact that the government has not confirmed how many of their FBI agents were there, I think any non-transparency from the government has to be seen as guilt. So I would treat it as a confession. If they don't tell you how many FBI agents are there, that's all you need to know. Your working assumption should be, oh there were a lot of them and they were there for nefarious purposes and they probably caused this and they're part of the brainwashing. So that's my working assumption now.

May I do an impression of a Democrat hearing me say that? But Scott, show your proof. Where's all your proof? Okay, you're not listening to me. When the government won't show its proof, they don't have the assumption of innocence. They have the assumption of guilt. So non-transparency from your government is a confession. Non-transparency is a confession. Same with the elections.

All right. And then somebody cleverly said to me, so Scott, because I also said it's the worst case scenario if they're not telling you something, it's you could assume the worst case scenario. And somebody said, what about the UFO stuff? The government won't admit we have UFOs so is it a worst case scenario there? Good question. And the answer is it depends what you think is the worst case scenario. If you think the worst case scenario is that aliens are going to kill us, well okay that would be pretty bad. But I assume the aliens are not real. So that the worst case scenario is that the CIA has been telling alien stories forever whenever they want to distract us. That's the worst case scenario for me because the worst case realistic scenario does not involve actual aliens. It's not really realistic. But the worst case real life scenario is that the CIA has been intentionally diverting our attention with alien stories, which by the way historically we know they have done that. We just don't have confirmation that they're doing it today but we do have written confirmation they've done it in the past. Use UFO as a diversion.

Well, can we be honest enough to mock Biden's all-female White House comms team? So his communications team when he formed it was all women. I think there were nine principles in the group, you know, probably with lesser staffers there too. But all nine were women and pretty high level of diversity within the women as well. And they were quite proud of that. And I think we would all agree they have the worst comms team of any president ever. I mean just laughably bad. So at what point can we call Biden's administration the DEI government? Because a lot of what we're seeing in terms of incompetence is really exactly what we warned, which has nothing to do with anybody's genetics and nothing to do with anybody's culture. That there might be just not enough people to go around if everybody wanted to improve their diversity. You're going to have to go deeper in the less qualified people just to meet your diversity goal.

Now do you know who doesn't believe that? Well never mind, I'm going to skip that one anyway.

Tony Bobulinski, he's going to sue Representative Democrat Daniel Goldman for allegedly defaming him. Daily Caller reporting that. Now I don't have an opinion about whether that's a worthy lawsuit. Here's what I do have an opinion about. I'm guessing that the same well-organized Republicans who are behind other lawsuits are behind this. I doubt Tony Bobulinski would pay his own money to pursue a defamation case that probably won't work. Defamation is really hard to prove. It's not the sort of thing you do with your own money. It is the sort of thing you do if some rich Republican said I'll pay for the whole thing. And if you're mad enough maybe you can get your revenge. So that's what's happening. So it's a good trend that the Republicans are going full legal war now.

And apparently even Democrat judges are noticing that the Democrats have gone too far. So there's a story about a federal judge, a Democrat-appointed judge who just went off on the Hunter Biden related subpoenas cases. So U.S. District Judge Anna Reyes, a Biden appointee to the federal court, and she just spent an hour saying that the Justice Department attorneys were hypocrites for instructing two other lawyers to not comply with the House subpoena. And this Democrat judge says, all right let me understand. Peter Navarro is in jail for the thing you're saying you want to do. Now explain how that works. You just put Peter Navarro in jail for the exact same thing and now you think that your two lawyers should walk free? How? Make that make sense. And apparently she just went off on them because it's so obviously a non-justice process. I mean it's obvious to her that the legal system has been co-opted. I would say based on her words it seems obvious that she's not trusting the Department of Justice. So there's that. So maybe other people are noticing too.

Here are some, you didn't know about. I'm not sure this is pro yet so I'm not happy about the quality of the sources for this story but I'll report it as long as you know that I can't confirm this is entirely true. But the story goes like this. That Israel is using facial recognition in Gaza and with the Palestinians to determine who the Hamas militant terrorists are. And part of that is an AI program working in the back. So it's not just facial recognition, it's also activity. So if you let's say were on a WhatsApp group with some terrorists the AI would say well there's a good chance you're a terrorist too. So they would look at your lifestyle, your travel, anything they could find out about you, your social media, and then they would create a list, the AI would, of probable terrorists or probable Hamas militants. And then they would wait. Now this is the claim and it's a little too on the nose for me, meaning it sounds exactly like something Israel's enemies would make up out of nothing. So I'm not believing it all yet. I'm just reporting that it's in the news.

And the report is that once they use their AI and their facial recognition and they know who they want to target, they wait for that person to go to their residence at night and they bomb the whole residence and kill the family. Now the allegation is that Israel knows it's doing this and knows that its AI will be wrong say 10% of the time. And that 10% of the time they're not only not killing a Hamas operative but they're killing the family of the person who is also not a Hamas person. So that's the allegation against them.

And then there's a further allegation that they're using Google product as part of that. So part of the Google facial stuff I guess Google can group people by face so that has something to do with what they're doing. So I would be suspicious of this story because it's a little too perfect. You like it. It brings in the headlines of the AI and facial recognition and people want to make that evil. And then it brings in this other story about bombing the wrong people and bombing the residents and stuff like that. It kind of conveniently ties together too many popular things for me to feel comfortable with the story. Yeah, all right. So you can believe that one or not.

But let me ask you this question. Suppose it's all true and that the Israelis look at somebody who is 90% likely to be a militant and that they do actually wait until they're in their house. Would that be wrong? Because if they think they're probably killing a bad guy and they've accepted some collateral damage to do it, that's not a lot different than war in general. I mean you'd have to make your argument but it's not that different than just everything that happens in war. Because when you're bombing a city for example you know you're killing civilians and you know that you're doing it intentionally in the sense that it's unavoidable. Intentional meaning unavoidable, not you wanted to do it. I don't know. And when you assume that the Hamas person has weaponized his family, there's a small distinction between the actual gun holder and the teenage sons who want to follow in their footsteps and the mom who raised them. So you could make the argument that blowing up those homes is just part of normal military action if it's happening at all. I don't know what the odds are. I give it a 50/50. I think the best I could do is 50% chance, likely to be true, coin flip. And the coin flip is because there's nothing to depend on in the story. It's a very undependable story. Hidden sources. Yeah it just doesn't quite add up.

All right. And then there's some, I guess America, the Biden administration is pressing Israel to let some civilians get back into the north of Gaza. Now is that real or does the United States not understand what's happening here? They're not going to just let everybody go back. What would be the point of even having a war if you're going to let them go back and just rebuild the whole problem? Whatever is going to happen and I certainly don't know but it's not going to be hey let's just build back and all you peaceful civilians go live in peace. I don't know what's going to happen.

I'd like to make a prediction. Here's a future conspiracy theory prediction. I don't think Israel can say out loud what the real plan is which is not to resettle it. That's I'm just speculating, not based on any information. So if it were me and I was trying to sell this story without actually saying it out loud that we're not going to let people in, you have to come up with some other reason. You can't just say well yeah it's mostly women and children and stuff but we're not going to let you live in peace where you used to live. Can't really say that. Here's something you could say. Sadly there's been an environmental disaster. The water system has been polluted. Darn it. And there's so much cancer-causing dust in the air from all the bombing and asbestos. I'm just making this up. That it would be irresponsible for us to let anybody go live there because it's just too dangerous. So you better stay safe and stay in your refugee camps or wherever. Go to another country maybe. So I'm looking for a fake environmental claim. That's my prediction. That Israel will make a fake environmental claim to prevent people from moving back. That's my guess. So we'll watch.

Now by the way it might not be fake. It could be there's legitimately an environmental emergency there. I mean why wouldn't there be? I can't imagine that anything you're going to breathe is going to be good for you for a long time. I can't believe that if you're digging around in the rubble trying to clean up I can't believe that's going to be good for you. Like I don't know what kind of microbes and