at nobody can be okay with that. At least half the country, they can't be okay with it. So the IVF thing could be a surprising home run that nobody saw coming just because it's one of the few things that taps into your most basic instinct, which we act on all day long but we're not aware of it.

So this would be the thing I'm trying to add to the conversation is that your rational brain and IVF don't have any connection. I mean there's a rational, you know, we save money, etc. That's rational. But the real draw of it, if it really is moving independents in a big way like this one unconfirmed poll is saying, this could be important. It could actually move the election. Anyway, I wouldn't say that's confirmed yet, but it's sort of suggesting that.

So you know that Taylor Swift endorsed Kamala Harris, and she did in a very public way right after the debate. So she got maximum attention. And she was clever, and she was holding her cat and saying that she's a childless cat lady, making fun of JD Vance. And Mike Benz points us to NATO's YouTube channel. So I didn't even know NATO had a YouTube channel. But on the NATO channel, where nobody's hiding it because again it's NATO's own channel, this isn't somebody talking about NATO, this is NATO's own channel. And there's a screenshot that Mike Benz shows that says, quote, "Goal: identify key actors to train and spread desired messaging. Example: encourage opinion leaders to share counter IO." I don't know what IO is, but content. What is IO in that context of NATO? Interoperability? Intelligence? Opinion? I don't know, but sounds something NATO related.

All right, so yeah, the goal is to identify key actors to train and spread desired messaging. And then there was a photo on that same slide right next to "identify key actors to train and spread desired messaging," and it was a photo of Taylor Swift. It's actually Taylor Swift's photo right next to NATO saying that they're going to try to bring in these personalities to help them with their messaging. Oh man.

So my take on this is we've entered the don't-even-need-to-hide-it phase. It seems like the people running the real country are not trying to hide it. And the reason is they don't need to. And here there are two reasons they don't need to. One is the news is so saturated with complicated stories that you and I have too much to worry about. I can't pick one of them out. You could easily imagine that this alone, the Taylor Swift thing, would be the number one headline story in the country. Oh my God, NATO is weaponizing our celebrities against us. Can't you imagine that would be a headline story that people would talk about for a month? Do you know why it's not a headline story and we don't talk about it for a month? Because the things that become headlines are not organic. There are a few entities which have close intelligence connections which decide what the headlines will be for all the other news. If the New York Times says this is our big story and they hit it a few times, the other news just picks it up. Washington Post, same thing. CNN, maybe.

So the point is if the news can tell you what is news, they control the narrative. And everything is so complicated that you can't do much with it yourself. You know, you've seen me. I follow the news maybe because I do it literally every day. Top two percent. Is that fair? Of people who are aware of and capable of following some of the details of the news, would I be in the top one percent? Only because I do it every day, not because of my magical abilities. Maybe top one percent. I don't understand the lawfare stories. I just get them all confused. There's too many of them. And there's so many stories like that where the details of them are so confusing that how could anybody understand it?

So as long as whoever controls the media decides which stories to focus on and then they keep everything else complicated, the public is completely neutered. Do you know why there's not a big protest about the use of electronic voting machines? Do you know why there's not protests in the streets? Well, first of all we're divided, so maybe one side doesn't mind it so much. The other is it's complicated and they'll just tell you no, the machines are fine. Well, but I think they're not. We had an expert look at them. They're fine. Everything's too hard to understand.

Yeah, take Ukraine. If your story of Ukraine is Putin's a monster and he's invading countries because he's basically Hitler, if that was your view, you're missing out on a lot of details about why the United States may have always wanted to control Ukraine and NATO's growth and the security state and the military industrial complex and the Maidan overthrow in Victoria Nuland. I mean to actually understand Ukraine is incredibly complicated. So at this point the bad guys can show their work right in front of us and we'll just go, ah, I have so many other things to complain about like the national debt. It just seems more important. I'll let that one go. So we let it go. They can do stuff right in front of us.

Now let me give you another example where they can do it right in front of you. Daniel Dale, I talked about this. He still has a job. He ranked the lies and the fact check for the debate thirty-three to one, with Trump lying thirty-three times and Harris only once. Now this is an example of where there isn't, in my opinion, the slightest chance that he thought that was real. Do you disagree? See, I don't think there's the slightest chance that Daniel Dale is the fact checker on CNN and doesn't know what the facts are. But he scored it thirty-three to one. What's that tell you? Well, it tells me that something's happening right in front of you. Right in front of you. They're doing it right in front of you. There's no way that was organic. I don't know where it comes from. I don't know what forces caused it. And I'm not saying somebody talked to him because we don't need to do that. Everybody knows what they need to do. You don't have to have a conversation about it. Everybody knows. So if Daniel Dale still has a job, then they can do anything they want right in front of you. It doesn't have any consequences at all.

All right, so let's look at how secure our elections are now that we have a few data points. We know that the Democrats are massively using lawfare against Trump and that the Department of Justice is corrupt in a really deep way. So could you say that the election is unrigged if one team has been essentially illegitimately lawfaring one candidate out of office for over a year? I would say that that would be enough to say the election's rigged if nothing else happened, just by that.

How about Dr. Robert Epstein's work in which he claimed that Google is so obviously biased and fixed it can completely move the election dial one direction or another, and it always moves it toward Democrats? Do you think that he's got a handle on that? Well, we don't know because I have trouble trusting any data or any expert at this point. But I haven't seen him be debunked. Haven't seen the debunk. We did hear that his wife was killed in a suspicious car accident right after people warned him that he might get killed in a suspicious accident. So everything about that screams that he's on to something. But you know I'm not the one who can confirm that.

Of course we have mail-in votes, massive mail-in votes. That suggests that the intention is to cheat because there's