hat ought to get worked out. Now, I'm not being naive. I do think that he was selling influence or at least the illusion of influence, which is so close to real influence that I don't know. I wouldn't even make a distinction really. But I don't think it's going to be provable. Do you? I just don't think it's provable. So I think the outcome will be no jail, and they'll hide this as long as they can. Statute of limitations will run out, and some stuff it'll just trickle into nothing.

Well, RFK Jr. had what I consider the best take on the Hawaii fires, which the death count is up to 59, I think. No, 80. I think the death count is up to 80 unless I checked, and it's going to get worse. But instead of blaming climate change, which is the idiot move if I can just say that — blaming the Hawaii fires just on climate change, that's sort of an idiot move. Nobody knows that. You know, we can know it's a factor. It could be a factor, but we don't know that's the reason.

So RFK finds the high ground here, and he basically says Hawaii fires are a result from poor tending of the land. So he goes into his explanation of why the land was ready to burn that way. But he doesn't dismiss that there could be a climate element to it. And then he says you don't know. I mean, that's way more than we know right now. That's consistent with his theme for drugs and food. We just don't know they're safe. And then he takes that to climate change and says maybe, but we don't know. The part we know for sure is we're not managing the land and the water correctly.

So then he ends with an appeal to find the middle ground, which is can't we all just agree that we should manage our land and our water better? We don't have to agree on climate change. You could disagree on climate change, but still, don't we agree that we should reduce the risk of fires? So it was funny watching him find the common high ground that you can't argue with. There's just no argument to that. Who is it who would say no, we should not manage our fire risks? Nobody, right? Of course.

So I think he found the perfect sweet spot. You know, don't become a climate change crazy person, but don't ignore that the brush is extra bad this year, so you should do something about it. I just liked his reasonable middle ground because it's so rare that anybody can find the middle.

All right. CNN is starting to show a little doubt about funding the Ukraine war, and I'm going to call this as a signal of some kind of a shift. So last week CNN had a poll that said 55 percent of the public doesn't want Congress to give more money to Ukraine, and 45 say yes. So that's a pretty solid lead saying don't give more funding to Ukraine.

And CNN's the way CNN is talking about it is — here's their actual sentence on their website: the White House on Wednesday downplayed CNN polling showing most Americans oppose the funding of Ukraine. Think of that choice of words. This is CNN. They love them some Democrats. But they're saying they showed their own poll. So their own poll says that funding is not popular by the public, and then it says the White House downplayed the CNN poll. So you can see them beginning to turn, right? They just turned on it. Like you're — wait, this is our poll.

Imagine being CNN. Imagine all the water that CNN has carried for Democrats. CNN is just doing everything for Democrats. And then they put out their own poll, and the White House downplays their poll. Imagine how you'd feel. I've been carrying your water for years. I've told every imaginable lie you can imagine and pretended we believed it. Could you just tell — could you just say that the poll is actually meaningful? It's our poll. A little bit of reciprocity wouldn't be the worst thing, you know. You can almost feel the tension there starting to form.

Of course you would not be surprised that the Democrats are strongly in favor of funding. The Republicans are strongly against further funding. And where did we get to the point where the opinions about unnecessary wars reversed? You know, when did the Republicans be the ones who don't want unnecessary wars? Do you think that the only thing happening is team play? Do you think that if a Republican had been the leader who said we got to do this Ukraine thing, do you think the numbers would be actually reversed and the Democrats would be saying, my God, why are you funding this war? Of course. Of course.

Then let me ask you this. Do you think the media is the reason for the war? Because the media is what causes us to be divided. Let's say the media's business model of chasing outrage, it causes the teams to move to their teams. And now it's caused a huge number of people to be in favor of an unnecessary war so that they can be on the other side from the Republicans. To me it looks like team play is why we're funding the war. It doesn't look like we thought it down and it's in our favor and we've considered all the alternatives. And you know, it doesn't look like that. It looks like the media poisoned the public to the point where you just can't be on the other side's team. It's impossible. And that's why we have enough support to fund it. Because 45 percent can get away with it, but much less than that, he couldn't.

All right. I saw a video in which Klaus Schwab — if this is real, because remember we're in the age of deepfakes. I think this is real, but I'm not going to guarantee it. So put a little question mark, put an asterisk on this story because the video itself could be fake. I think it's true. But anyway, here's what Klaus Schwab allegedly said. In the new world — uh-oh, he's in trouble right off the bat. In the new world — and all of you just went, oh, what's wrong with the old one? All right. In the new world you have to accept total — what? You have to accept total transparency. It will become part of your personality. You have to accept it. In the new world you'll have to accept everything will be transparent. If you have nothing to hide, you have no reason to be afraid.

So what do you think of that? Is he telling you that he's going to make you do it, or is he predicting? Is he saying he's causing it or is he predicting it? How do you interpret this?

All right. Well, I'm going to make your heads catch on fire because I agree with him 100 percent. I agree 100 percent as a prediction. As a prediction. Do you know why there's a 100 percent chance that you will lose all privacy? Does anybody know the answer? There's a 100 percent chance you'll lose all privacy. Why? Correct answer: number one, you already have. You already have. Do you believe that any of your communications are not monitored? They only need a reason. They just need a reason, and they already have access to all of your bank accounts. They can unwind your entire life, all of your private messages, etc. Yeah. So yeah, you don't have much privacy. You just didn't know it was happening. It happened gradually until you didn't have any.

But that's different from your neighbor knowing what you're doing. All right. It's bad enough that the government can know anything it wants, but it would be bad if your neighbors could just see everything. That'd be kind of scary. However, here's why I agree with the prediction. This is not a preference. I'm not talking about a preference. I'm predicting you will have no privacy whatsoever because every individual will have the power to destroy an entire city. Do you disagree with my statement that in the near future, whether it's AI or biological entities or building your own nuclear weapon, do you agree that we're pretty close, maybe 20 years away, from the point where any individual can destroy an entire city? Yeah.

Once you reach that point, will any cities be destroyed? Once you get to the point where somebody can, will they do it? Of course. Yeah, of course. Will they do it more than once? Probably. Probably. After they've done it three times and three major cities have been completely destroyed, what will happen next? We will realize there's literally only one way to stop it from happening again, and that will involve a complete lack of privacy for all humans. They come in the country anyway. They will have to remove all privacy to prevent one person from destroying an entire city over and over again.

Now, if you don't believe that prediction, tell me how else it could go. Do you believe that one person won't have that ability? Because tha