be fighting or would he want us to live our conscience and express our best feelings about the world and the afterworld and all that."

So this is not a complete idea. I'm just sort of leaning in the direction of something that might have some possibility. But if you've ruled out one country and you've ruled out two countries, you're going to have to find something that's not one of those two things. And I think it's possible. Now, who could pull that off? Who could change reality? Reality. We're not talking about negotiating. We're talking about changing reality. Who could change reality enough to make some kind of peace happen without a traditional state situation? Trump. There's only one person in the world who could do that. Trump. Now, will he do it? I doubt it. It doesn't seem like that would be exactly in his domain, but you could imagine it could be done. You can imagine it. So just for a moment, imagine maybe there's a way to solve that. And it won't be a one or two state solution.

Well, I am continuing to be entertained how Democrats are addicted to things that aren't real. So they were of course pushing the trans bubble, the whole trans thing. That wasn't real. I mean, trans people are real, but not the size of it. There was a fine people hoax and all the other hoaxes that they believed in. They still believe January 6 was an insurrection because that's how you conquer a country by wandering around without weapons. That's how you do it. That's what they think. They believe there was no problem at the border. They think that Trump is going to run for a third term and steal your democracy. They think that crime in the cities is actually getting better as opposed to what's really happening, which is they're tweaking the statistics. They think the climate crisis is real. They think Republicans are the ones who close the government even though the Republicans have all voted to open it. They believe that we do know or that it's even possible to know that the 2020 election was clean. Now, it would be one thing if you're arguing whether it was rigged or not, but they don't even argue that. They argue that it couldn't have been rigged because we know it. That's just crazy.

And remember when they said that when Trump said he wanted to find votes and he got impeached for that, didn't he? But find is just a regular word, but they imagined it meant go steal some votes or go lie. They thought that there was a huge white supremacist threat in the US. Well, so far those white supremacists seemed kind of quiet. And it makes sense that the Democrats would become a completely imaginary believing group. The group is real, but what they believe in is almost entirely imaginary. And it makes sense because the Trump people, they laid claim to common sense and once it became a catchphrase of the right, you can't really use it on the left. So the fact that everything that Trump does falls under common sense, what's left, the opposite of common sense, is imaginary stuff or stuff that's just stupid. So some of it's just stupid but most of it's based on imaginary stuff.

Now if what I'm saying is true what would you predict from that? So if it's true that the Democrats have gone into a completely imaginary world of things well you would expect that whatever they're doing right now like whatever their biggest effort is would be a fight against something imaginary. But wait it gets better. It wouldn't just be a fight against something imaginary. They would use imaginary tools to fight the imaginary thing. Do you think you could ever get to the double imaginary? Yeah. It's this weekend. They're going to have a no kings rally, which is my understanding a bunch of paid protesters, probably elderly white people who will wander around and not cause any trouble. And they believe that the wandering around on the weekend will help save them from Trump stealing their democracy.

So, first of all, nobody's stealing their democracy. Second of all, there is no logical common sense way that people wandering around this weekend on a nice autumn day is going to change anything in the real world. So you've got an imaginary problem which they have matched with an imaginary solution and they're all going to be marching around this weekend and the Republicans are just going to be watching and saying what the hell is all this? What's your imaginary problem? And how do you imagine that this imaginary solution will have any connection to what you believe the problem is? What? What is Trump going to step down because a few thousand people marched in the city? What do they even think is going to happen?

Well, let me explain why this happens. On the Democrat side, and it might be true on the Republican side more than I wish it were true, but on the Democrat side, it's all just money. These protesters are part of a paid business model. Somebody who has a business that organizes protests and as long as they can get the Democrats to pay them to organize another protest, you'll have a protest. It doesn't mean that it will work or that anybody thinks it's a good idea. It just means they got paid. So if you follow the money, it makes perfect sense that they have an imaginary solution to an imaginary problem because all that really mattered was did they get paid and the answer is yes. So now you understand everything.

I saw some comments on X from Steven Pinker who's a Canadian-American cognitive psychologist, Harvard professor. If you don't know who Steven Pinker is, the short version is very smart. Smarter than me, smarter than most of us, right? So you need to know that he's smarter than ordinary people because otherwise this won't make sense. So he's smarter than ordinary people, but he was talking in some event recently about how Trump is violating norms. He violates norms. The way he talks about things, the way he acts, he violates norms and that could be bad. Such as he gave an example of talking about maybe annexing Greenland or Canada and that normally you wouldn't say stuff like that and he thinks that it's a negative development that Trump violates norms. To which I said why do you automatically think it's bad to violate a no