pparently just in three states on our northern border, so this is not the entire northern border, just three states, Vermont, New York and New Hampshire. And keep in mind that yeah, just three states. And currently according to the border patrol they got 19,000 illegal immigrants in 2024 so far. That's higher than the previous 17 years combined. And they came from 97 different countries.

Now how many got through if 19,000 got caught but only in three states that border? So we got a whole bunch of states that border Canada. That's a lot. How many terrorists do you think are inside the country?

If I were Iran, let me tell you how I would build a defense against the United States. And I don't think I'm giving them ideas because this is sort of obvious. If our borders are open you would sneak as many operatives as you could. And any one motivated operative with a little bit of weaponry that doesn't seem too hard to get could do horrible damage, horrible damage. And again I'm not going to give many ideas.

Oh you, I think my Win Bigly, the first edition you're still seeing in various forms. It's the second edition that's not available in all its forms anyway.

So I would expect that if we have war with Iran, suddenly the lights are going to go out in the United States. So yeah. And I suppose it depends how bad things get. But if we took out, or Israel let's say Israel took out the oil refineries in Iran which basically eliminated their way to essentially eliminate their economy, they wouldn't be able to survive. I think they would turn the lights off in the United States. I think you literally wouldn't have electricity. And I think that they have the ability to do that either through physical sabotage or hacking.

And here's the thing. I wonder if something that big did happen to us in the United States, there's no restraint that we would use to make sure it didn't happen again. So that would end Iran as an independent nation in my opinion. If they turned off the lights in the United States and it you know we couldn't get them back on and it caused a hundred thousand people to die just from the lack of electricity, which is possible by the way, you could have a hundred thousand people die if that happened. Even we judged, well we were a little bit responsible for you maybe poking the bear some people would say and others would say no we're just responding to them poking us all the time. We'll never get to the bottom of that.

But if something that radical happened on the homeland I think the US military and Israel would essentially just colonize Iran and just take over the government there at whatever cost. I think at any cost we would do it at that point. So that's probably the only thing that's keeping Iran or China or anybody else from turning off our lights. Because it does seem we're super vulnerable. The only thing that we have is not that we're protecting our facilities or even our borders. The only thing we have is that if somebody does it we're going to find out who you are and we're going to make sure that everybody who's ever close to you is dead. So that's the only thing protecting us right now.

Yeah there's a bunch of counterfeit versions of all my books. So for all of my books as soon as I get published there'll be all these counterfeits. So hold this in your mind. Just hold this truth. So on Amazon I can only get my hardcover published because they give me technical problems that they can't solve and there's no mechanism to solve it for the soft cover and the Kindle. But how many counterfeit versions of my book did they approve? And you can buy them today. A lot. People just massively print counterfeit versions of my book and they won't take them down. But the real one they won't put up. And I'm worried that the reason I can't publish the real one is because the counterfeits have already taken the space. Meaning that the system probably says oh that book already exists but it would be the counterfeits. So I worry that that's the problem. Or it's just political. It'd be a big coincidence if it isn't.

Well do you know how California had that new law that said that disinformation was going to be illegal, especially political disinformation, and you could go to jail for a political parody? And it turns out that a federal court has tossed that out. It's unconstitutional. So the California ban on election-related quote misinformation looks like that's just going away. So thank goodness there are still some courts that operate. We don't have much going on for us but fortunately.

Well here's some good news. October is so lit when it comes to all the election stuff. The things that it looks like maybe people waited to tell you. But here's one. Did you know, well you did know that the Republican, the RNC where Lara Trump and who is she working with? She's got a co-chairman person, Michael Watley. So Lara Trump and Michael Watley. In case you're wondering if they've been busy, you're wondering hey is that orange getting anything done? Listen to this.

So apparently the RNC has recruited and trained hundreds of thousands of volunteers, thousands of attorneys, and have already held thousands of trainings ahead of the election. So that the total number of volunteers is 220,000 and they've had over 2,000 trainings and they've got 5,000 attorneys recruited. 5,000 attorneys, 220,000 volunteers, and they've had 2,000 training sessions. Does that sound like they're working hard? Sure does. Sure does.

Now it's impossible to know from a distance you know how much of this is needed and whether you got enough. But these are big numbers. So remember I told you months ago I said that the wild card in all of this, the election, might be Lara Trump's level of aggressiveness. In terms of how aggressively are you going to make sure that cheating doesn't happen this time? This is aggressive. Now Michael Watley gets of course credit as well. They're a team. But I have nothing to complain about here. Do you feel the same? Does this feel like this is a serious no joke we're really going to try to fix this problem? Don't know if it's enough. Don't know if they'll be observing in a way that can make a difference. But wow this is the best news I think I've heard in a long time.

My perfect scenario goes like this. Democrats massively cheat. Republicans catch the cheat in time and it's enough to redo how we do elections. In other words we'll learn that our elections have too many holes because we'll catch too many problems. I don't think it's practical that we're going to have an actual election result unless Trump wins by landslide and the Democrats decide uncharacteristically they decide it was a clean election.

So I think what you're going to see is that Democrats will be questioning the election if they lose even by a landslide and they'll say Russia interfered. They'll do all the normal things and they'll try to put Trump in jail. So we're just getting going and we're only the third of October.

Oh look it's another coincidence. Oh look at all the coincidences happening in October right before the election. Here's a coincidence. According to Scott Presler who's signing people up to vote in Pennsylvania, doing an amazing job, this Saturday Trump is going to come back to Pennsylvania to that Butler farm show place, the same place he almost was assassinated. So imagine how much press he's going to get and how much Pennsylvanians will be paying attention when Trump goes right back to the very place where somebody took a shot at him. Right, that naturally will be just complete press saturation. There's no way they can ignore it. And it'll make you think if you're a Republican. It's really going to make you think to vote. It's really going to make you think to register if you haven't. Because Pennsylvania is the key thing.

So not only is Pennsylvania the key state but by coincidence it's a place where he got shot at and almost killed, shot actually. And here's a coincidence you'll never guess. Turns out that the Pennsylvania voter registration website is going to be unavailable for maintenance that evening from 6:00 p.m., which is one hour after the rally, to midnight. So the exact period of time where people would be thinking about Pennsylvania, thinking about voting, thinking about registering, that's when the system won't be available. The one time that Trump goes back to Pennsylvania to that same place, the one time he's going to get the most press and the most attention, they're going to do a little maintenance on the system so you can't register then. Coincidence? It could be. It could be that the maintenance was scheduled long before the Butler thing. But don't you think it looks like election interference? If you wanted to make it not election interference, you know, let's say they scheduled it a year ago so there's nothing weird about it. Once you knew that Trump was going to be in Butler shouldn't you change it? Shouldn't you, couldn't you reschedule it? Couldn't you do it maybe after midnight? I don't know. I got questions. I'm not willing to say this was done specifically to depress Trump voters from registering. I'm going to say that if you knew it was going to be a problem you should reschedule. So if they don't, well then that looks a little slippery.

Meanwhile according to the Gateway Pundit you know we've got this big question mark about overseas votes. These would be Americans who are allowed to vote, they just happen to be overseas. So there's a big program by the Democrats to make sure that those overseas voters are definitely voting as many as possible. It's called the Uniformed Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act. And so the Democrats are going to really, they put money into it and they're going to go look and make sure that all those people voted.

Do you see any possible problems with that? No, what's wrong with making sure people vote? How could that possibly be a problem? You are so suspicious. No they're just they just want to make sure everybody has a right to vote and that's available and nothing stops people from expressing their democratic preferences. So stop thinking there's some like plot or it's obvious that there's something sketchy going on. There's no evidence of that whatsoever. No evidence at all.

Let's see. They're trying to win approximately, they say there are 9 million Americans that are overseas and could vote, some percentage of them. So they're working on that 9 million. The only problem is there are only 2.8 million of them that are of voting age and can vote and live overseas. So they're going to, they're working to get 9 million votes out of the 2.8 million. Wait a minute. Okay which is a bigger number? Nine is bigger than 2.8 right? So there are only 2.8 that are of the right age and also are overseas but they're trying to get 9 million votes out of the 2.8 million. Okay I take back everything I said. You should really really worry about that.

Now this is coming from the Gateway Pundit and various sources. And do I know that there's something sketchy here? Well this is one of those cases where you'd want to hear the counterargument. So the accusation is that they're very clearly signaling that they're going to get way more votes from overseas than there are human beings who are eligible to vote overseas. So it does feel like the setup is being broadcast to us. You can see it coming from a mile away unless they have an explanation. And maybe they have different data about who's overseas and what they expect to do. Maybe. But do you trust that? Does this look innocent to you? It doesn't look innocent to me.

Now one would hope, one would hope that the Lara Trump, Michael Watley RNC people have some way to get extra visibility into that process. I don't know what that would look like but there's got to be some way to see the votes opened up or something. We'll see. Maybe if that's completely unauditable we got a problem.

Meanwhile Judge Chuck Kan has unsealed Jack Smith's new indictment. And this is the one that got on all the lawfare stuff. I'm the worst person to listen to so I'll tell you what I think I know. The only thing you can get out of my analysis of the lawfare stuff is that somebody who watches the news doesn't even understand it. Like I do this literally every day. I check all the news stories and my brain just turns off when I look at the legal stuff. Partly because it's always just so boring and partly because you know if you're not a lawyer you can't really understand which parts are important and which parts are just formalities and which parts will be overturned so you don't have to worry about them. You know it's hard for me to dig in. So look for the actual lawyers, you know the Jonathan Turleys and the Dershes. You know look for the people who've done this to give you a better look.

But here's what I think is true from a non-lawyer stupid perspective. It looks to me like it's another, oh it's a coincidence. What a coincidence that this dropped just before the election and we won't have time to know that. Let's say the accusations turn out to be false and let's say there's a court process and let's say that Trump is completely exonerated. Well you're not going to know that by election day because by coincidence this drops just in time to poison the well and make people think, whoa there's with all of this action, 165 pages, there must be something there.

Now my understanding is that this was rewritten because of the presidential immunity decision at the Supreme Court which said that if Trump did something under the official banner of his office he had some immunity. So apparently it's being rewritten to emphasize the things he did which they're defining as outside the scope of his official office. For example they talk about his tweeting in his personal account as opposed to his presidential account because using the personal one would be a sign that he's doing it knowing he's doing it outside of the presidential umbrella. Does any of that matter? I don't know. You'd have to talk to a lawyer, not me.

But you've got this totally biased prosecutor. You've got this totally left-leaning judge. And they just dropped this thing that cannot be defended. There's just no defense against it because it's complicated and people just say well there's something there. With all that smoke there must be fire. But of course the play is create lots of smoke so that people think there's a fire. So during the election season it is not true that with all that smoke there must be fire. That's just not true during an election season. It's just true that it could be. But in the non-election context a whole bunch of smoke probably tells you there's a fire. And the election season doesn't mean anything. It just means somebody's making an accusation.

So I tried to figure out just exactly what was in that thing. And as far as I can tell it's mostly somebody called it hearsay. Meaning that it's a bunch of people who were acting in ways that maybe they thought were compatible with what Trump wanted. But there doesn't seem to be anything that Trump said or did directly that would be illegal as far as I know. Now this is too preliminary to know that that was a true statement. So I'm waiting for the news to surface. You know what's the thing we need to know? Can you give me the quote that says Trump did something? Haven't seen it. I've seen a bunch of quotes that other people thought they were doing other things.

But here's my big question about the whole situation. Everything that Trump did on January 6, and this is all about the January 6 business, everything he did in order for it to look like it was against the law would require you to know that he knew the election was clean. That's the trick they're playing on the country and Democrats are falling for it. Democrats actually believe you can measure the temperature of the earth accurately and they believe that you can know if an American election was clean or not. I don't know how dumb you'd have to be to believe either of those two things but super dumb.

There is no way to know if an American election was clean. You can know if somebody had a specific complaint and there was time and standing to pursue it. You could know how the court ruled. But there's no way to know that there is or is not something hidden in the system that was changing the result. How do you know what you don't know? You don't. Hey look there's a giant pile of hay. Somebody said there might be a needle in it. How do you judge there's no needle in it? Well I don't see a needle. No court has decided there's a needle. You can't prove there's a needle. But then I say but you also can't prove there's not a needle because you're not even looking for it. Well why would I look for something that is unspecific? Well that's my point. How would you know if there was something in the system that was corrupting it if you didn't look? Well nobody's complained. There's no court case. I know this had nothing to do with my point. How would you know that some state actor maybe with some insiders hadn't done something? How would you know there weren't some mail carriers who got together and said let's just throw away all the mail from the red neighborhoods? How would you know? There is no way to know those things unless somebody came forward as a whistleblower or just somebody got lucky. There is no way to know. And our systems are designed to make sure you can't know.

Now if there's only one thing you ever learn you should learn that the system, the way a system is designed, will tell you the intentions of the designers. But not on day one. On day one it could just be poorly designed and then you go oh okay they didn't mean for the machine to not work. That was just a mistake. If it's 10 years later and the machine is still doing the wrong thing you can no longer say that's an accident. At some point, and we're well beyond that point, at some point it's the design intention because you would fix it if it were not the design intention, right?

So that's why you can't tell in the first place. But is obvious. It is now obvious, very obvious, completely obvious. And by the way you will never see anybody debunk this point. There's your dog not barking. You'll see people say there was no proof of fraud. True. There's no proof of fraud that a court accepted. Oh let me put it that way. There's no court-accepted proof of a 2020 fraud. Doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean you didn't have any fraud. Yeah our systems are designed to make sure you can't tell and that's really obvious.

So what else is going on? So my main point there is that I've got this question about the latest Jack Smith indictment stuff. How much of that depends on Trump's inner thoughts? As in if Trump knew, because they like to say he knew the election, that he lost the election. Don't let anybody say that in front of you. If somebody says he knew he lost the election just get all over him and say how could you know the unknowable? How do you know? You couldn't even describe how the election is put together. And then you go into why do we have voting machines at all.

So I think the entire January 6 hoax, and I'm going to call it a hoax, the hoax is that we know what Trump knows or that he could know whether the election was clean or not. To me it seems obvious that he really believed it was rigged which would make 100% of his actions make sense. Because if he thought it was rigged and he was trying to fix that problem that would be doing what the president should do. But on top of that even if he did it as a private citizen it's what a private citizen should do. A private citizen should try to fix a problem with the system if you had the power as a citizen. You weren't elected to anything and you saw that there was some big thing that you could fix. What's your responsibility as a citizen? Fix it. Fix it. It's not your job but it's definitely your responsibility as it would be for all of us.

Like the flood, the flood is you know sort of the government's job and FEMA the one supposed to be doing it. But you've seen a bunch of people say what the hell this isn't getting done. So they're taking their own helicopters and raising their own money, you know trying to get their own internet connections in there and stuff. So citizens do have a responsibility to fix things that are broken.

So whether Trump was operating under the banner of his job or independent of his job that didn't change the fact that it was his job as a citizen. Not a paid job, not an elected job, but as a citizen absolutely he's supposed to go fix that if he's the one in a position where it makes most sense for him to do it. If I were in the position where I could fix that I would feel that was my job. An unpaid job but it would certainly be my patriotic duty to try to fix it.

So yes don't let anybody make you think past the sale. The sale they have to make is how do you know that Trump could somehow know the unknowable that it was a clean election when it looked like it wasn't. That's not knowable. Don't let anybody make you think past that.

Well there's more Diddy updates. I keep seeing videos of Jaguar Wright who is a musician herself and she claims to have all kinds of inside information about Diddy's parties etc. She said she used to be a sex worker and so she sees the world from the darkest corners. And she was also part of Diddy's world so she's seen the entire field she claims.

And here are the things that she's saying. That there were in fact Satanic rituals. Again this is just a claim. I would put her credibility as a coin flip. I'm not sure that I lean toward her being accurate on everything but it does sound accurate. I have to admit it has a ring of truth to it. I just don't know if all of it's true so I'd take it with a big grain of salt, this particular source. But it's worth listening to.

So she says that young girls were stuffed into suitcases and later discarded in alleyways. You'd think there somebody would ask a follow-up question on that. Oh hold on, hold on. Young girls put in what suitcases? And then you take the suitcase to the alley. Are they alive in the suitcase? And why'd you put them in the suitcase? And if they were dead why'd you put them in an alley? So that's the sort of accusation where I say hm. Satanic rituals probably not. Girls stuffed into suitcases, if I had heard it happen once I might have said well that's terrible but it could happen once. But if you're saying it's sort of a routine thing to stuff girls in suitcases and drop them in alleys that's a little less credible sounding.

She implicated Jay-Z saying he has hundreds of victims. There's not yet any solid evidence of that. And then she goes this far. She says there's some sinister web that ties together Diddy, Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein. Okay I'm out. I'm out. Too on the nose. Is that a little bit convenient? Just a little bit too perfect. Oh it cleverly ties together all these loose ends. Now it could. I'm not ruling it out. I mean stranger things have happened. But it's a little bit too exactly like what people are expecting you know in their conspiracy theories.

And she says that Diddy was a product of music mogul Clive Davis and Lucian Grainge, never heard of him, and taught him everything he knows. Well interestingly last night I was watching a Whitney Houston documentary that involves Clive Davis discovering her. And according to the documentary Clive Davis is just the nicest guy and man can he help your career because he's a nice guy. Just a nice nice guy. So do I believe that version of him? No. Because honestly almost nobody is that nice. If he's as nice as he was in the movie he's really nice. That would be one seriously nice guy. And maybe he is. Maybe he is. So I'm not willing to go so far as to throw any of these characters under the bus. I think we can throw Diddy under the bus with some confidence. But all the other names I'm really uncomfortable assuming that there's actual evidence of crimes. There might be. There might be. I mean there's 120 alleged victims according to one attorney. So how big this could get we don't know. But don't assume that some big celebrity name you heard is necessarily going to be guilty.

Well Israel is supposedly going to target in the next day or so maybe Iranian nuclear facilities, maybe oil facilities. And Israel did just today I guess strike a Russian air base in Syria. Now the reason is that some weapons for Hezbollah were allegedly in an airplane that landed there. So they were really going, they weren't going after Russians they were going after the Hezbollah supply line. But they haven't done that before. So it attacked the warehouses. It was trying not to kill too many people apparently. And Russian air defenses tried to intercept the Israeli missiles. So it was a missile attack and they failed.

So does that tell you anything? Does that tell you that Israeli missiles are better than Russian air defenses? Or does it maybe tell you that Russia has to use all their good stuff in Ukraine? Is it possible that the Syrian military assets are just all the crap stuff left over that didn't go to Ukraine? Maybe. Don't know. But certainly Israel has demonstrated that they can reach anything. And they have demonstrated by basically not having any damage from 200 rockets or 200 was it intercontinental missiles that got sent at them from Iran with no damage really to speak of. I mean nothing major.

So we're in that weird area where everybody's posturing and they've got to make sure that they look strong and they made a defense but they didn't go too far because you don't want a bigger war. So everybody's trying to balance on the head of a needle here.

So what would you think? Are they going to attack? Is Israel going to attack the nuclear facilities which would slow down Iran's ability to have a breakout nuclear thing with nuclear weapons? Or would they go after something that's more directly related to their economic well-being? So if they go after the oil terminals Iran has said they'll go after all the oil terminals in the area so the entire world will be out of oil. Would they do that? Don't know. There's a real good chance they wouldn't because if they took out all the oil facilities in the Middle East that would make every country in the Middle East say does anybody want a little help destroying Iran? We'll send some people. I mean I can't imagine that the other neighboring countries would put up with that. You know is Saudi Arabia going to put up with that? I mean I think that's World War I now. I think World War III would still be limited to the Middle East mostly except for terrorist acts in other countries. But I feel like Israel probably won't go after the oil refineries because that would be too much of a shock to the whole world.

But if they go after the nuclear facilities and that's all they go after and let's say they succeed in slowing it down then they get a definite benefit and it might not spread. It might be the least likely to spread to a larger field. And they could say that they responded. So I guess I would bet on that as the first most likely thing they would do is take out the nuclear thing. Because if they take out the nuclear threat, the threat that Iran can make a nuclear weapon in two weeks, which by the way is the estimate that they're about that, if they wanted to they could have a nuclear weapon in two weeks. Do you know what I say about that? If Iran could have a nuclear weapon in two weeks, which by the way I'm not sure that that's true, but if they could have it in two weeks they already have one. How the hell would we know if they had a nuclear weapon already if the experts were saying they could make one in two weeks if they wanted to? Are you telling me they could make one in two weeks if they wanted to and they didn't make one? They've had two weeks. In what world does a country not secretly make an actual nuclear weapon? That would be insane. They should make it as fast as possible and tell everybody they got one or at least suggest it so that you don't know if they can attack with a nuke or not.

Now I suppose Israel's intelligence would probably be good enough that they would know if they had a breakout nuclear weapon. But if I were Iran I hate to say it but I would have made the nuclear weapon already. So there's that.

Then there's the thought that if Iran got into a general war like a big wider war where really the mainland of Iran was under attack that they don't have enough manufacturing ability to replace their weapons after a fairly intense fight. So if they use most of their weapons fighting they don't have a way to rebuild them fast enough to stay in the fight. And the only place they could get them would be Russia and Russia is not likely to send them a lot of weapons at the same time they're trying to use them in Ukraine. So Iran is probably not capable of a sustained war that it could win.

So these are all the variables. Now I haven't heard the news talking about a decapitation attack. And given that Israel has shown that they'll take out the leaders of Hezbollah and Hamas if they can, do you think that would really stop them from taking out the leadership of Iran? I feel like it's on the table. It seems a lot safer than taking out the oil facilities. If you take out the oil facilities it's war for sure. If you take out the leadership I don't know, maybe it's worse. I don't know how to judge that one.

But most importantly there's the BBC reports there's some science that scientists have made a huge breakthrough in analyzing the brain of a fly. Now even a fly has a super complicated brain but it's a tiny little brain and way less complicated than bigger mammals. But they think they've made this big breakthrough in sort of mapping it almost like physically building a map of how all the neurons connect to the other ones. And it's the most detailed analysis of the brain of an adult creature ever produced.

Now what they don't say is that it's the first step in understanding why Democrats vote the way they do. You got to start with the fly but then you work your way up. So it's like fly, salamander, Democrat. No I'm just joking. I'm just joking. I kid the Democrats. Now they're like everybody else except they're afraid of things that don't exist.

Well Meta has these new smart glasses that you can wear with some VR capabilities. And some people combined that with an app called PimEyes that can do facial recognition. And it'll allow you to walk through a crowd and the personal information of everybody you look at will pop up on your glasses. So you'll know the name and address and social media history and they say phone numbers but I don't know where they get that. So you can actually see the phone number of somebody as you walk past them in a crowd, total strangers.

Now is that going to stay illegal? Probably. Probably. But imagine going to a party wearing your nerd glasses and you could tell who's single. Suppose that's the only thing you knew. You could tell who's single just by looking at them. Suppose you could tell their job just by looking at them. Suppose you could tell how much money they have just by looking at them with your glasses. That's all happening. That's all happening.

So my little life where most of the time I'm anonymous is about to end really quickly. You know if I leave my small town here and I don't run into somebody who watches the show every day I'm kind of anonymous. Like if I go to an airport I'm not usually recognized. Sometimes not usually. Now all it would take is a few people with those glasses on and they're going to ID me right away. So does that change my life? I don't know. It might change my life radically. Yours too.

Apparently the doctor who prescribed the drugs for Matthew Perry that he died of an overdose of has pled guilty according to the BBC. So there were two doctors involved. One had some facility that had ketamine and the other was his doctor. So I guess his doctor was working with the source doctor. So none of it was illegal in terms of the doctoring but I think the amount that they got and the way it was distributed, the way it was ingested, there are questions there I guess.

But here's the part that was just really scary. So according to the indictment the two doctors involved they were exchanging texts trying to figure out how to get this drug to Matthew Perry. And they're trying to figure out how much to charge him. And one of the doctors said and I quote, "I wonder how much this moron will pay." Those are the doctors. The doctors, the people who were responsible for keeping Matthew Perry alive were wondering how to rob him and calling him a moron.

If I can make any advice to the medical professionals who are watching now, I wouldn't ever call any of your customers morons because you never know when that's going to get discovered. I feel like all of our messages are discoverable and at some point they'll all be available publicly everywhere. That seems inevitable. But maybe don't do that. Yeah don't be like that.

Meanwhile according to the Independent the US Army is rolling in a robot dog with a gun on it. And we've talked about this before. We got robot dogs with flamethrowers. We've got every kind of drone. And now we have robot dogs with guns fitted at the top. Well you know I want one of those. If anybody's thinking about a good Christmas present to send me at the top of the list is a robot dog to defend my house.

Now here's where we're going with this. These are actually being deployed in war zones now. So Ukraine, the Ukrainian military is going to be seeing robot dogs with guns and flamethrowers coming over the hedge. That is not going to be a fun battle I'll tell you. So we've now entered the age in which humans are going to fight robots. That's here. Because already the Ukrainians are using their robots to breach the front lines and shoot the Russians. So we now have humans fighting robots. It's real. It's now the question is this. How long will it be before both sides are just all robots?

Now if a major power fights a smaller power it's going to be the major power's robots against the humans of the smaller power and the humans won't have a chance. You know assuming that the superpower has lots of money to make lots of robots humans won't have a chance. But what happens if two superpowers that can make unlimited robots get in a war with each other? Would it ever make sense for the US and China to be in a war in which we put humans on the front line if we could send unlimited drones and unlimited robot dogs? Wouldn't you just have the robots fight the robots? It's just going to be BattleBots right?

And then what happens when one of the robot sides wins? Does the other side say whoa whoa whoa we're not going to put our humans against your robots and you've already beat the robots. We surrender. It's going to be like that Star Trek where they would do a simulation of the war so they didn't have to have the actual war. And then whoever lost the simulation of the war had to volunteer to be basically suicided you know in some humane way. I think we're actually heading to that place like actually literally. Where after the robot war is over the losers have to accept the penalty whatever that penalty is. Could be slavery anyway.

So you might all want your own robot dog to guard your house. And also the Second Amendment is going to get a little dicey. If the Second Amendment says you can own a gun what's it going to say about your robot dog with a machine gun mounted on it? Or let's say it's a single-shot sort of a home defense weapon but it's mounted on a robot. Do we ha